COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA"

Transcription

1 COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Gorenshtein v. British Columbia (Employment Standards Tribunal), 2016 BCCA 457 Tatiana Gorenshtein and ICN Consulting Inc. Employment Standards Tribunal, Director of Employment Standards, Maria Tagirova, Anna Baranova Date: Docket: CA42982 Appellants (Petitioners) Respondents (Respondents) Before: The Honourable Chief Justice Bauman The Honourable Madam Justice Saunders The Honourable Mr. Justice Tysoe On appeal from: An order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, dated July 10, 2015 (Gorenshtein v. British Columbia (Employment Standards Tribunal), Vancouver Docket No. S151147). Counsel for the Appellants: Counsel for the Respondents, M. Tagirova and A. Baranova: Counsel for the Respondent, Employment Standards Tribunal: Counsel for the Respondent, Director of Employment Standards: Counsel for the Attorney General of British Columbia: C. Dennis, Q.C. J. Bastien N. Drolet S. Quail E. Miller J. O Rourke A. Adamic J. Mason J. Walters

2 Gorenshtein v. British Columbia (Employment Standards Tribunal) Page 2 Place and Date of Hearing: Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, British Columbia May 3 and 4, 2016 Vancouver, British Columbia November 18, 2016 Written Reasons by: The Honourable Madam Justice Saunders Concurred in by: The Honourable Chief Justice Bauman The Honourable Mr. Justice Tysoe

3 Gorenshtein v. British Columbia (Employment Standards Tribunal) Page 3 Summary: The appeal is from the dismissal of a petition for judicial review of a decision upholding the determination under the Employment Standards Act that the appellants had breached ss. 10 and 12 of the Act. The complainants, Russian nationals, entered into contracts for services which included services related to obtaining employment. Section 10 of the Act prohibits charging a person a payment for employing a person or for providing information about employers seeking employees. It is aimed at ensuring an open market in job opportunities. In the midst of the complaint process the appellants commenced a small claims action for additional payments under the contract, and obtained judgment against one of the complainants. The Court proceeding against the other was stayed. It was contended: that the decision makers erred in failing to recognize there was a reasonable apprehension of bias in respect to the first determination because the Director had urged the Provincial Court to defer to the Employment Standards Act processes; that the Provincial Court order had preclusive effect over the processes under the Employment Standards Act; and in the alternative, that the doctrine of federal paramountcy operated to subordinate provincial law to the federal immigration scheme. Held: appeal dismissed. The bias submission is without basis because a delegate, not the Director, made the determination. The Employment Standards Act gave exclusive jurisdiction to the administrative decision makers to determine complaints. There was neither operational conflict nor frustration of the federal scheme by the device of s. 10 of the Act, so as to engage the doctrine of federal paramountcy.

4 Gorenshtein v. British Columbia (Employment Standards Tribunal) Page 4 Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Madam Justice Saunders: [1] It is a given in our community that a person seeking work is not required to purchase the job, either by paying an employer for the hire, or to pay a go-between. Employment generally being a matter of property and civil rights, it falls to the provinces to ensure the open market in job opportunities. To this end, British Columbia prohibits a person from charging prospective employees fees for obtaining employment or for providing information about employers seeking employees, and it regulates employment agencies. It does this through the Employment Standards Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 113, principally ss. 10 and 12. They provide: 10 (1) A person must not request, charge or receive, directly or indirectly, from a person seeking employment a payment for (a) employing or obtaining employment for the person seeking employment, or (b) providing information about employers seeking employees. 12 (1) A person must not operate an employment agency or a talent agency unless the person is licensed under this Act. [2] At the same time, Canada is keenly interested in economic integration of immigrants and in immigration targeted at certain occupations, for the betterment of Canada. To this end, the federal government regulates consultants to represent people, for a fee, in connection with immigration to Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. This has an employment component. [3] This appeal concerns an intersection of these two designs. On one front, the Provincial Court has ordered a Russian national, the respondent Ms. Tagirova, to pay additional fees to the appellant ICN Consulting Inc. under a contract made before she came to Canada in regard to obtaining a labour contract, obtaining a work permit and coming to Canada to work as a live-in caregiver. Another action brought by ICN against the respondent Ms. Baranova for a similar order is stayed. She, too, is a Russian national. On the other front, the Director of Employment Standards appointed a delegate to investigate complaints that Ms. Tagirova and Ms. Baranova filed under the Employment Standards Act, alleging that payments

5 Gorenshtein v. British Columbia (Employment Standards Tribunal) Page 5 already made under the contracts are contrary to the Act. On the delegate s determination that those payments contravened the Act, the delegate assessed a penalty against ICN and directed ICN to pay to Ms. Tagirova and Ms. Baranova the amount of fees they had paid to ICN. ICN appealed to the Employment Standards Tribunal, leading, after some detours, to the decision before us declining to interfere with the delegate s determination. [4] The Tribunal s decision was challenged by judicial review. Mr. Justice Silverman dismissed the petition and the appellants now appeal his order to this court. They contend: 1. the judge erred in law in failing to determine whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias in the delegate s determination that the ICN had contravened the Employment Standards Act; 2. the judge erred in law in failing to give preclusive effect to the Provincial Court order requiring Ms. Tagirova to pay monies to ICN under her contract; and 3. in the alternative to 1 and 2, the judge erred in failing to accord paramountcy to the federal immigration arrangements over the provincial statute. The Circumstances [5] ICN was licenced as an employment agency under the Employment Standards Act from January 2004 to January 29, 2008, and operates a business of facilitating the immigration of interested persons wishing to work in Canada as live-in nannies or caregivers under Canada s Live-in Caregiver Program. The appellant Ms. Gorenshtein is a director and officer of ICN and is a federally regulated immigration consultant, referred to in s of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/ [repealed ], as an authorized representative, and so may represent people for a fee in connection with proceedings or applications under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

6 Gorenshtein v. British Columbia (Employment Standards Tribunal) Page 6 [6] In October 2007 Ms. Tagirova and Ms. Baranova entered into contracts with ICN. In reasons for judgment Gorenshtein v. British Columbia (Employment Standards Tribunal), 2013 BCSC 1499, addressing an earlier petition for judicial review, Madam Justice Harris accurately summarized the requirements for a work permit under the Program and the contracts: [4]... To hire a foreign live-in caregiver, an employer must submit, among other things, an application for a Labour Market Opinion and a signed employment contract with the caregiver to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. [5] A foreign caregiver must apply for a work permit from a Canadian visa office overseas before entering Canada. In order to apply for a work permit under the LCP, a foreign caregiver must have a copy of a positive Labour Market Opinion issued to the caregiver s employer in Canada, and a signed written employment contract with the employer. [6] The contracts between ICN and Ms. Tagirova and Ms. Baranova provided that they would each pay $500 upon signing the service contract; $1,000 upon receiving the Labour Market Opinion; and three instalments of $500 upon their arrival in Canada - for a total payment of $3,000 USD. They also signed a promissory note in favour of ICN. [7] ICN also entered into a service agreement with two employers, who wished to hire caregivers. Each employer paid $750 upon signing the agreement with ICN. [7] The contracts between Ms. Tagirova and Ms. Baranova, and ICN, provide: The Company agrees to render the Client consulting services for the purpose of obtaining a labour contract, Work Permit and coming to Canada for work under the Live-in-Caregiver Program of Canadian government ( Program ), and the Client agrees to pay for the services rendered in the amount and on terms provided by this Contract. 1. The Company shall: 1.1 Assess the qualifications of the Client regarding the requirements of the Program. 1.2 To Inform the Client about the requirements of the Program and documents needed to obtain Work Permit in Canada. 1.3 Prepare the set of documents of the Client for submitting to employer according to Canadian standards. 1.4 Prepare the Client for interview with Canadian employer. 1.5 Inform the Client about processing of documents in government organs of Canada.

7 Gorenshtein v. British Columbia (Employment Standards Tribunal) Page Assist the Client in preparing necessary documents for submitting to Canadian Embassy or Consulate. 1.7 Prepare the Client for interview with Visa Officer of Canadian Embassy or Consulate. [8] Ms. Tagirova and Ms. Baranova obtained work permits and arrived in Canada in August 2008 to work as live-in caregivers. Upon learning of provisions of the Employment Standards Act and on the belief the fees required by their contracts with ICN were contrary to the Act, Ms. Tagirova and Ms. Baranova refused to make further payments to ICN. They filed complaints with the Director of Employment Standards on August 19, 2008 and November 29, 2008, respectively. By that time ICN was no longer licensed as an employment agency. Ms. Tagirova and Ms. Baranova claimed that ICN had charged them fees for providing information about employers or for obtaining employment for them, contrary to ss. 10 and 12 of the Employment Standards Act. Their complaints were allowed by a delegate of the Director on December 21, ICN appealed the delegate s determination to the Employment Standards Tribunal. On May 13, 2010 the Tribunal cancelled the first determination and remitted the complaints to the Director to be dealt with by a different delegate. In June 2010, before that determination could be made, Ms. Gorenshtein and Mr. Gorenshtein (also a director of ICN), on behalf of ICN, commenced small claims actions in the Provincial Court of British Columbia against Ms. Tagirova and Ms. Baranova for sums owing under their contracts. Ms. Tagirova counter-claimed for a return of monies already paid. The Director was not a party to those actions. [9] On October 19, 2010, a Justice of the Peace Adjudicator gave judgment against Ms. Tagirova, making a monetary order in favour of ICN. The Director learned of the judgment and sought to persuade Ms. Tagirova to appeal. She did not do so. The Director then contacted Ms. Baranova s counsel to discuss jurisdictional submissions, and when the claim against Ms. Baranova came before the Provincial Court, the Director intervened. The Director submitted to the court that the matter should not proceed because the issue concerned the application of the Employment Standards Act, which, on the authority of Macaraeg v. E Care Contact Centers Ltd.,

8 Gorenshtein v. British Columbia (Employment Standards Tribunal) Page BCCA 182, precluded the Provincial Court from exercising jurisdiction over the claim. The Provincial Court adjourned the trial concerning the claim against Ms. Baranova. [10] The Employment Standards Act complaints were still unresolved at the time of the Provincial Court trial of ICN s claim against Ms. Tagirova. On January 14, 2011, Ms. Tagirova filed a further complaint claiming the court s judgment contravened s. 10 of the Act. On May 3, 2012, the delegate found the 2008 complaints were well-founded under the Employment Standards Act in that ICN had operated an employment agency after January 28, 2008, without a valid employment agency licence contrary to s. 12 of the Employment Standards Act, and had charged a fee to individuals seeking employment contrary to s. 10 of the Act. The delegate made remedial orders concerning monies paid by Ms. Tagirova and Ms. Baranova, and assessed an administrative penalty. The delegate concluded that she was unable to reverse the court award and so did not accede to Ms. Tagirova s further complaint of January 4, [11] ICN sought to appeal the delegate s determination to the Employment Standards Tribunal. ICN was out of time for appealing and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. On judicial review, 2013 BCSC 1499, Madam Justice Harris quashed that decision and remitted the appeal to the Tribunal. [12] On April 16, 2014 the Tribunal dismissed the appeal (BC EST#D024/14). In the course of its reasons the Tribunal addressed ICN s submission, also made to us, that the decision of the delegate should be quashed because the Director had intervened in the Provincial Court, taking a position on jurisdiction contrary to ICN s position. The Tribunal held that the Director s participation in the Provincial Court proceedings did not taint the delegate s determination, and found that there was no conflict between the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Employment Standards Act. [13] ICN then asked the Tribunal to reconsider the appeal decision under s. 116 of the Employment Standards Act. On December 16, 2014, the Tribunal found ICN had

9 Gorenshtein v. British Columbia (Employment Standards Tribunal) Page 9 not met the established test for reconsideration and declined to reconsider its earlier decision (BC EST#RD129/14). It said: 77. As indicated above, none of ICNC s 15 grounds raises any significant questions of law, fact, principle or procedure flowing from the Original Decision which would warrant reconsideration. I find the Original Decision sufficiently addresses ICNC s arguments on appeal and I find no reviewable error in the analysis and conclusions reached by the Member. Nothing in lcnc s application persuades me the Original Decision was wrongly decided, or raises any significant issue that would warrant reconsideration. Accordingly, the application is denied. [14] In these reasons I refer to the two Tribunal decisions as the appeal decision and reconsideration decision, and the Tribunal as the appeal Tribunal and reconsideration Tribunal, where appropriate. [15] ICN and Ms. Gorenshtein next applied for judicial review of the delegate s determination, the appeal decision, and the reconsideration decision. [16] By reasons for judgment delivered on July 10, 2015, Mr. Justice Silverman dismissed the petition. In doing so he observed that it was the reconsideration decision that was properly before him, although the earlier determination and appeal decision could be considered for context. That conclusion is correct: Yellow Cab Company v. Passenger Transportation Board, 2014 BCCA 329, and is not challenged on this appeal. [17] The appellants contend before us that the reconsideration decision must be quashed because the grounds of error they advanced were meritorious, contrary to the reconsideration Tribunal s conclusion. Discussion I. The Bias Issue [18] The appellants contend that the Director demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias by intervening in its Provincial Court action against Ms. Baranova. They say the Director s expression of views in regard to the Director s jurisdiction, the court s jurisdiction, and the effect of the Employment Standards Act

10 Gorenshtein v. British Columbia (Employment Standards Tribunal) Page 10 demonstrates a closed mind concerning the complaints against ICN. They say the delegate must also have possessed a closed mind because her authority flowed from a close-minded (on these issues) Director. The result, they say, is such a diminution of impartiality as to raise a reasonable apprehension of bias that fatally undermines the delegate s determination. They say the appeal Tribunal erred in failing to recognize this defect in proceedings, the reconsideration Tribunal erred in failing to give effect to this submission, and the judge likewise erred in failing to quash both Tribunal decisions and the delegate s determination. [19] In rejecting the submission on bias the judge referred to s. 58(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, S.B.C. 2004, c. 45: 58 (1) If the Act under which the application arises contains or incorporates a privative clause, relative to the courts the tribunal must be considered to be an expert tribunal in relation to all matters over which it has exclusive jurisdiction. (2) In a judicial review proceeding relating to expert tribunals under subsection (1) (a) a finding of fact or law or an exercise of discretion by the tribunal in respect of a matter over which it has exclusive jurisdiction under a privative clause must not be interfered with unless it is patently unreasonable, (b) questions about the application of common law rules of natural justice and procedural fairness must be decided having regard to whether, in all of the circumstances, the tribunal acted fairly, and (c) for all matters other than those identified in paragraphs (a) and (b), the standard of review to be applied to the tribunal's decision is correctness. (3) For the purposes of subsection (2) (a), a discretionary decision is patently unreasonable if the discretion (a) is exercised arbitrarily or in bad faith, (b) is exercised for an improper purpose, (c) is based entirely or predominantly on irrelevant factors, or (d) fails to take statutory requirements into account.

11 Gorenshtein v. British Columbia (Employment Standards Tribunal) Page 11 [20] The judge then said, on the issue of standard of review in relation to bias: [29] While s. 58(2)(b) notes that questions of procedural fairness must be decided having regard to whether, in all the circumstances, the tribunal acted fairly, decisions of this Court have held that the standard is different where one expert Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to review the merits of a procedural fairness complaint. In that case, the standard is patent unreasonableness: International Forest Products Ltd. v. B.C. (Labour Relations Board), 2014 BCSC 956, and Health Sciences Association of B.C. v. Interior Health Authority, 2015 BCSC 98. [31] All of the other grounds deal with matters that are within the Tribunal s exclusive jurisdiction and therefore the standard of review is patent unreasonableness. This will include those grounds where claims relating to natural justice and/or procedural fairness is invoked. Having said that, even if the standard under s. 58(2)(b) were the stated whether, in all of the circumstances, the Tribunal acted fairly, on the facts of this case, I would come to the same conclusion with that standard as when applying the patently unreasonable standard. [21] Rephrasing the appellants submission somewhat, the appellants, addressing bias, contend: 1. the judge erred in identifying the standard of review on this issue; and 2. the judge erred in his consideration of the substance of the issue of reasonable apprehension of bias. 1. The Standard of Review in Regard to Bias [22] The appellants say the judge was mistaken in applying a standard of patent unreasonableness. [23] Section 110 of the Employment Standards Act is a privative clause. It provides: 110 (1) The tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to inquire into, hear and determine all those matters and questions of fact, law and discretion arising or required to be determined in an appeal or reconsideration under Parts 12 and 13 and to make any order permitted to be made. (2) A decision or order of the tribunal on a matter in respect of which the tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction is final and conclusive and is not open to question or review in any court.

12 Gorenshtein v. British Columbia (Employment Standards Tribunal) Page 12 [24] Given the existence of s. 110, s. 58(1) deems the Tribunal to be an expert tribunal in regard to matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and s. 58(2) stipulates the standard of review a court must apply, depending on the issue challenged: in regard to findings of fact or law or an exercise of discretion over which the Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction under the privative clause, the standard is patently unreasonable (s. 58(2)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act); in questions of the application of the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness, the issue is measured on the standard of fairness of the tribunal s actions (s. 58(2)(b)); and in all other matters, the standard of review is one of correctness (s. 59(2)(c)). [25] The notions of bias and reasonable apprehension of bias are issues of natural justice and address the integrity of the adjudicative process. The appellants challenge to the standard of review applied by the judge proposes that questions of natural justice arising from the delegate s determination considered, and then reconsidered by the Tribunal, come within s. 58(2)(b) of the Administrative Tribunals Act rather than s. 58(2)(a). This can be correct only if the question of bias or reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the delegate, is not (adapting the words of s. 110 of the Employment Standards Act) a matter or question of fact, law or discretion arising or required to be determined in an appeal or reconsideration. [26] In my view, the finding there was no bias or reasonable apprehension of bias requires a finding of fact against a legal standard. In this case, such a question was required to be determined by the Tribunal. It was, therefore, a matter over which the Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction within the meaning of s. 110 of its home statute. Accordingly, under the Administrative Tribunals Act s. 58(2)(a), not s. 58(2)(b), applies to establish the standard of review as patently unreasonable. [27] The appellants refer to Taiga Works Wilderness Equipment Ltd. v. British Columbia (Director of Employment Standards), 2010 BCCA 97 to support their proposition that s. 58(2)(b) applies. In Taiga Works Mr. Justice Tysoe said for the court: [38] As did Huddart J.A. in International Union of Operating Engineers and Berger J.A. in Stewart, I prefer the approach advocated by de Smith, Woolf

13 Gorenshtein v. British Columbia (Employment Standards Tribunal) Page 13 and Jowell in Judicial Review of Administrative Action. One should review the proceedings before the initial tribunal and the appellate tribunal, and determine whether the procedure as a whole satisfies the requirements of fairness. One should consider all of the circumstances, including the factors listed by de Smith, Woolf and Jowell. [39] In the present case, the chambers judge referred to s. 58(2)(b) of the Administrative Tribunals Act and concluded that the second Tribunal member had acted fairly in his reconsideration decision. With respect, it is my view that the chambers judge looked at the issue too narrowly. In stipulating a standard of whether the tribunal acted fairly in questions involving the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness, s. 58(2)(b) is referring to the tribunal which has allegedly breached those rules. On the judicial review application before the judge, it was not disputed that the Director s delegate had breached those rules. The issue was not whether the proceedings before the second Tribunal member were fair but, rather, whether the proceedings as a whole were rendered fair by the direction given by the second Tribunal member. [28] I do not read Taiga Works as discordant with the view on standard of review I have expressed, for the reason that Mr. Justice Tysoe was addressing a different issue. In Taiga Works the tribunal had identified unfairness in procedures engaged in the initial determination and had purported to cure the procedural defects by considering documents not considered by the delegate. On an application for reconsideration, the reconsideration Tribunal referred the matter back to the appeal tribunal, rather than to the Director whose determination had been challenged. This court held the Employment Standards Tribunal could not cure the Director s breach of natural justice in the circumstances presented, and a rehearing by the Director was required. Taiga Works is, in essence, a case of the curative ability of the Employment Standards Tribunal to mend a breach of procedural fairness, and is not a case on standard of review; the use to which Taiga Works can be put is limited by the circumstances before the court. Lord Halsbury famously explained this proposition in Quinn v. Leathern, [1901] A.C. 495 (H.L.) at 506, in a passage referred to recently by this court in Cowichan Valley (Regional District) v. Cobble Hill Holdings Ltd., 2016 BCCA 432: there are two observations of a general character which I wish to make, and one is to repeat what I have very often said before, that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole law, but governed and qualified

14 Gorenshtein v. British Columbia (Employment Standards Tribunal) Page 14 by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. The other is that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides. [29] I would not accede to this ground of appeal. 2. The Substance of the Bias Issue [30] An allegation of reasonable apprehension of bias, by its nature, is a serious complaint. The leading authority on disqualification for bias is Wewaykum Indian Band v. Canada, 2003 SCC 45, at para. 60: In Canadian law, one standard has now emerged as the criterion for disqualification. The criterion, as expressed by de Grandpré J. in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy Board, supra, at p. 394, is the reasonable apprehension of bias:... the apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by reasonable and right minded persons, applying themselves to the question and obtaining thereon the required information. In the words of the Court of Appeal, that test is what would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically and having thought the matter through conclude. Would he think that it is more likely than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly. [31] The allegation here is that the delegate could not decide the complaint fairly because she was assigned the complaint by the Director, who had sought to persuade Ms. Tagirova to appeal the judgment against her and had intervened in the Provincial Court trial in ICN s action against Ms. Baranova. The appellants say no reasonable observer could have confidence the delegate had not pre-judged her response to the complaints given that the Director had taken the position that the Provincial Court s judgment was wrong and made without jurisdiction. They have added to their theory advanced in other hearings by saying the definition of director in s. 1 in the Employment Standards Act erases any distinction between the Director and her delegate. [32] The respondents object to this supplemental submission and say it was not considered by the judge in the judicial review proceedings and should not be considered by us.

15 Gorenshtein v. British Columbia (Employment Standards Tribunal) Page 15 [33] It seems to me that the submission on the effect of the definition is an amplification of the appellants main submission that ascribes the mind of the Director to the mind of the delegate, and is not off the table on this appeal. [34] The appellants challenge the judge s conclusion there was no patent unreasonableness in the decision on bias of the reconsideration Tribunal. The judge, in relation to the assertion of patent unreasonableness, adopted this paragraph from the reconsideration decision: 74. ICNC s submissions about what counsel for the Director said in Provincial Court were addressed in the Original Decision at paragraphs I agree with the Member s analysis of these submissions, and in particular his conclusion that there was no basis in the submissions made by ICNC to conclude that counsel s comments established the Director had prejudged the validity of the complaints against ICNC. [35] The appeal decision, adopted by the reconsideration Tribunal in the above paragraph, stated: 181. This argument does not relate to any conduct by the delegate, but concerns the involvement of the Director in the Provincial Court proceedings initiated by ICNC against Ms. Baranova and Ms. Tagirova. There is no evidence the delegate had any direct involvement in the matters before the Provincial Court or that the Director had any involvement in writing the Determination Even a cursory examination of the Act reveals the legislative intent to provide the Director with an overseeing role and the approach both the Tribunal and the Courts have taken to the role of the Director under the Act has been fashioned to be consistent with its provisions Regardless of the specific points raised in the arguments made by ICNC, the overarching question raised here is whether, on a review of the matter and content of the Director s submissions and participation, the Director has acted outside the role contemplated and permitted by the legislature It is apparent that the decision of the Director to become involved at the Provincial Court level related to questions of the sort addressed in Macaraeg and E Care Centres Ltd., 2008 BCCA 182. At issue was the home statute of the Director. At stake was the interpretation of a statutory provision in the Act prohibiting persons from directly or indirectly charging fees for finding employment for another person and the scope of the jurisdiction of the Director to decide all questions relating to the Act. At the core of the dispute was statutory

16 Gorenshtein v. British Columbia (Employment Standards Tribunal) Page 16 interpretation, both as it was raised in Provincial Court and in the complaints to the Director. The matter did not, except incidentally, concern the complainants claims; it was not those claims that were the reason for the involvement in Provincial Court. Rather, it was the Court s view of its authority to interpret section 10 and the resulting interpretation. This matter, at its core, was not a simple dispute between ICNC and the complainants; the effect of the actions of the Provincial Court Judge and of the interpretation placed by him on section 10 was to severely restrict the scope of that provision. It is not apparent from a review of the Judge s reasons in the Tagirova decision that any consideration was given to the unique nature of employment standards legislation or the principles that govern its interpretation and application The issue on which the Director took a position has considerable significance to the proper administration of the Act as it not only impacts the exclusive jurisdiction of the Director, but also addresses a fundamental concept under the Act: that a person should not have to buy a job In my view, the legislature, by making the Director responsible for the administration of the Act and initially responsible for its interpretation, conferred a status on the Director that from time to time requires the Director to become a protagonist in cases involving the administration and interpretation of the Act. That is exactly what the Director did here and, to reiterate, there is no evidence the delegate who decided this Determination participated in that action in any way. [Emphasis added.] [36] I see no error in the judge s conclusion. There is no basis in evidence to support the theory that the Director s views on any issue relevant to the complaints of Ms. Tagirova and Ms. Baranova were adopted, or filtered into, the mind of the delegate so as to cause a reasonable apprehension of bias with respect to the delegate s determination. There is therefore no basis for any submission that a subsequent decision maker erred in failing to identify a fatal flaw at the foundation of the pyramid of decisions. Such a suggestion is plainly at odds with the general scheme of the Act described in para. 188 of the appeal decision replicated above. [37] In particular, I do not accept the submission, made for the first time on this appeal, that the definition of director assists the appellants. Section 1 of the Act defines the Director and refers to delegation:

17 Gorenshtein v. British Columbia (Employment Standards Tribunal) Page 17 director means the Director of Employment Standards appointed under the Public Service Act and, in relation to a function, duty or power that the director has under section 117 of this Act delegated to another person, director includes that other person; [38] Contrary to the appellants submission, this provision is not one that merges the minds of the Director and a delegate, but rather one that gives the delegate the authority of the Director in matters the Director assigns. I see no basis to conclude that the definition of director inherently dilutes the delegate s natural autonomy. [39] I conclude that there is no view of the circumstances that can satisfy the Wewaykum criteria for a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the delegate. In my view the judge made no error on this issue. II. The Effect of the Provincial Court Judgment on the Employment Standards Act Process [40] The appellants contend that the reconsideration Tribunal was bound to find error in the delegate s refusal to defer to the Provincial Court order, and that the judge erred in not setting aside the reconsideration decision for failure to do so. This broadly-stated issue is one that was required to be addressed by the judge on the standard of patent unreasonableness, as provided by s. 58(2)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act. [41] The petition before the judge alleges 15 faults in the Tribunal s decisions as grounds for an order quashing the Tribunal s decisions. The judge did not analyze each fault from scratch. Rather he observed that most, but not all, issues raised by the appellants had been addressed by the reconsideration Tribunal. He recited at length from the reasons of the reconsideration Tribunal, matching the alleged faults in the petition with the paragraphs from the reconsideration decision that he could identify as addressing those matters. He then said in conclusion: [64] It is impossible to say that the analysis in the Reconsideration Decision, with respect to any of the grounds, when considered separately from the others, was clearly irrational and was patently unreasonable. [65] When the analysis of those grounds are considered together and in the context of the balance of the Reconsideration Decision, the Appeal Decision, the entire record, and all the submissions, I am satisfied that the

18 Gorenshtein v. British Columbia (Employment Standards Tribunal) Page 18 ultimate decision of the Tribunal to dismiss the petitioners Application for Reconsideration was not patently unreasonable. [42] The appellants make four broad submissions as to why, apart from the issues of bias and federal paramountcy, the Tribunals decisions should not be allowed to stand and the judge s order should be set aside: 1. the Director, in the circumstances, should have exercised her discretion to discontinue investigating or adjudicating the complaints, as allowed by s. 76(3) of the Employment Standards Act; 2. in continuing to investigate and adjudicate the complaints, the Director participated in an impermissible collateral attack of the Provincial Court order; 3. the issue of the enforceability of the ICN/Tagirova and Baranova contracts, and the issue of breach of ss. 10 and 12 of the Employment Standards Act were res judicata, by virtue of the Provincial Court order; and 4. proceeding under the Employment Standards Act, after the Provincial Court order issued, was an abuse of process. Other threads from the appellants multi-pronged petition referred to in their factum and still the source of complaint, do not provide a basis on which we should interfere with the order, and I mention them only briefly at the end of this discussion. [43] The four submissions just listed address the duality of the decision in the Provincial Court in favour of ICN and the delegate s determination in favour of Ms. Tagirova and Ms. Baranova, and the contention that the judge was bound to give preclusive effect to the Provincial Court order. The last two submissions were addressed by the judge. The first two, however, were not expressly adverted to by him and were not listed in the 15 faults recited in the judicial review petition.

19 Gorenshtein v. British Columbia (Employment Standards Tribunal) Page 19 [44] In considering these four submissions, two propositions frame the discussion. The first is that this court generally does not consider submissions that were not advanced in the proceeding giving rise to the order appealed. The general advisability of a restrained approach has long been recognized. So in S.S. Tordenskjold v. S.S. Euphemia (1908), 41 S.C.R. 154, citing The Tasmania, 15 App. Cas. 223, Justice Duff observed that an issue not raised at trial but presented for the first time on appeal ought to be most jealously scrutinized. In Quan v. Cusson, 2009 SCC 62, the Supreme Court of Canada addressed the circumstances in which a new issue may be raised on appeal, referring with approval at para. 36 with Justice Duff s observation in Lamb v. Kincaid (1907), 38 S.C.R. 516: A court of appeal, I think, should not give effect to such a point taken for the first time in appeal, unless it be clear that, had the question been raised at the proper time, no further light could have been thrown upon it. [45] In Quan the court adopted the approach in Wasauksing First Nation v. Wasausink Lands Inc. (2004), 184 O.A.C. 84 and approached the issue by asking three questions in this sequence: first, is the issue truly new ; second, is the evidentiary record sufficient; and third, being the question in which the issue of potential prejudice looms large, do the interests of justice support granting an exception to the general rule? This restrained approach is consistently applied in British Columbia, see for example, Devine v. Devine, 2012 BCCA 509; Suen v. Suen, 2013 BCCA 313. [46] The restrained approach to entertaining new issues engaging the evidentiary record also applies to legal questions that have not been the subject of a reasoned decision. For example, in R. v. Trieu, 2010 BCCA 540, this court referred with approval to the observation in R. v. R. (R.) (1994), 91 C.C.C. (3d) 193 (Ont. C.A.), that when a court of first instance does not have the opportunity to undertake an analysis, the appellate function is compromised. There is, however, room for the exceptional case where there is no prejudice to the other party: Braber Equipment Ltd. v. Fraser Surrey Docks Ltd., 1999 BCCA 579.

20 Gorenshtein v. British Columbia (Employment Standards Tribunal) Page 20 [47] Moving this proposition to judicial review, it is generally considered that a judge should not find a decision to be patently unreasonable based on a submission the Tribunal never heard. It is even less desirable that an appellate court should consider, for the first time, a submission neither made to the judge nor made to the tribunal. While there may be rare exceptions to this approach so as not to allow a potential error of law to be perpetuated as in, for example, Prince George (City) v. Columbus Hotel Company (1991) Ltd., 2011 BCCA 218, those cases are few, and serve to illustrate that the overarching question is always the interests of justice in the context of the appellate function. [48] Second, as between enforcement of the Employment Standards Act in the courts or on the administrative setting provided by that statute, the nod goes to the administrative apparatus. This proposition was settled in Macaraeg v. E Care Contact Ltd. In Macaraeg this court considered the enforcement of rights given by the Employment Standards Act, holding that where the legislation provides an enforcement mechanism, statutory rights are to be enforced by the statutory mechanism, not by court action. Mr. Justice Chiasson summarized for the court: [101] The proper analysis begins with Orpen [Orpen v. Roberts, [1925] S.C.R. 364]: did the legislators intend that conferred rights could be enforced by civil action? The answer to the question requires consideration of the legislation as a whole. If it affords effective enforcement of the rights, the general proposition, that statutorily-conferred rights are to be enforced not by court action, but by a statutory mechanism, applies. If the legislation does not afford effective enforcement, the exception to the general rule applies and the rights can be enforced in a civil action. The civil action will be based on recognized causes of action. In the case of rights conferred on employees through employment standards legislation, the rights will be implied terms of the employment contract and enforced through an action for breach of contract. [102] When a statute provides an adequate administrative scheme for conferring and enforcing rights, in the absence of providing for a right of enforcement through civil action expressly or as necessarily incidental to the legislation, there is a presumption that enforcement is through the statutory regime and no civil action is available. [49] While Macaraeg does not preclude a party suing on a contract in respect of which a defence of a prohibition in the Employment Standards Act might be raised,

21 Gorenshtein v. British Columbia (Employment Standards Tribunal) Page 21 as occurred here, Macaraeg is a clear expression of the pre-eminence of the administrative apparatus in resolving issues arising under the legislative scheme. [50] I have borne these two propositions in mind when addressing the propositions of the appellants listed above. 1. The Effect of s. 76(3) of the Employment Standards Act [51] Section 76(3) of the Employment Standards Act provides: 76 (3) The director may refuse to accept, review, mediate, investigate or adjudicate a complaint or may stop or postpone reviewing, mediating, investigating or adjudicating a complaint if (f) a proceeding relating to the subject matter of the complaint has been commenced before a court, a tribunal, an arbitrator or a mediator, (g) a court, a tribunal or an arbitrator has made a decision or an award relating to the subject matter of the complaint, [52] The appellants say ss. 76(3)(f) and (g), combined with Workers Compensation Board v. Figliola, 2011 SCC 52, lead to a conclusion that the Director was bound to discontinue the complaints made by Ms. Tagirova and Ms. Baranova once the Director learned of the judgment of the Provincial Court. [53] In Figliola the Supreme Court of Canada considered the case of claimants who filed an appeal of a compensation award that applied the Workers Compensation Board s chronic pain compensation policy. That question of compensation, of course, was squarely within the specialized jurisdiction of the Workers Compensation Board. The appellants contended that the Board s policy discriminated against them contrary to s. 8 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c The WCB reviewing officer held that the policy was not a violation of s. 8. Rather than appeal using the machinery of the Workers Compensation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 492, the claimants filed a complaint under the Human Rights Code. The Code contained a provision, s. 27(1)(f), somewhat similar to ss. 76(3)(f) and (g), that allowed the Human Rights Tribunal to dismiss a matter where the

22 Gorenshtein v. British Columbia (Employment Standards Tribunal) Page 22 substance of the complaint has been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding. The Workers Compensation Board applied to the Human Rights Tribunal for an order dismissing the complaint. The Human Rights Tribunal rejected the application and found the complaint should proceed to a full hearing. The Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the Human Rights Tribunal should have dismissed the complaint. In reaching this conclusion the Supreme Court of Canada discussed the various principles that discourage re-litigation and forum shopping, speaking to the desirable qualities of finality and fairness that are promoted by s. 27(1)(f). [54] The appellants urge us to reach the same result, and say the principle of finality has been impeded by the Director s persistence in processing these complaints through the machinery of the Employment Standards Act. [55] Although s. 76 was considered by the delegate, the submission that a correct application of s. 76 in the circumstances required the Director to discontinue the Employment Standards Act proceedings against ICN, and the application of Figliola were not advanced before the Tribunal, either on appeal or on reconsideration. Nor were they raised before the judge on judicial review. The protection given the Tribunal by the privative clause in s. 110 demonstrates that interpretation of the Act was intended by the Legislature to rest with those charged with administering the Employment Standards Act, with the courts engaging in interpretation only as part of our deferential review role. By advancing this issue (requiring interpretation of s. 76) in this court when it was not advanced before the tribunal whose decision is under judicial review, the appellants are, in my view, impermissibly side-stepping the role of those charged with the task of understanding their home statute and applying it. I conclude that this case does not present an exceptional circumstance that warrants our resolution of this new submission. 2. Collateral Attack [56] The appellants contend the judge erred in failing to find the Tribunal s decisions are patently unreasonable as allowing an impermissible collateral attack

23 Gorenshtein v. British Columbia (Employment Standards Tribunal) Page 23 on a court order. Here, too, they rely upon Figliola, as well as Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79, 2003 SCC 63. [57] It is said this issue, too, was not developed in the train of decisions and we should decline to address it. The appellants, on the other hand, refer to paragraphs 44 through 48 of the reconsideration decision adverted to by the judge. I agree that the reconsideration decision did not specifically discuss collateral attack, and the theory of collateral attack was not separately advanced in the petition for judicial review. There is therefore a basis upon which we could decline to consider the issue of collateral attack. It must be said, however, that unlike the s. 76 issue, the issue of collateral attack does not engage aspects unique to the Act. Instead it engages a general principle based upon facts well known to the parties that are apparent in the record. More importantly, it is closely related to two issues that were before the judge, res judicata and abuse of process. In my view, we should address this issue. [58] A collateral attack is an attack upon the validity of, or an attempt to avoid the effect of, a decision or order by seeking a different result in a different forum. As concerns Ms. Baranova, there is no decision from the Provincial Court to attack. Given the lack of precedential effect of the Provincial Court order concerning Ms. Tagirova, I do not consider the doctrine of collateral attack is capable of applying to the decision on Ms. Baranova s complaint. [59] Nor do I consider the proceedings under the Employment Standards Act with respect to the original complaint of Ms. Tagirova to be a collateral attack upon the Provincial Court judgment against her for two inter-related reasons. First, it is established that rights conferred by the Employment Standards Act are to be enforced in the statutory regime: Macaraeg. The practical effect of this proposition is seen by reference to the s. 12 aspect of the complaints. Section 12 concerns regulation of employment agencies. It played no part in the court proceedings which were directed to the obligations of the parties. Yet the complainants were entitled to an answer on that issue, and the answer was of significance to the enforcement of the standards established by the Act. The answer on s. 12, and the facts

24 Gorenshtein v. British Columbia (Employment Standards Tribunal) Page 24 surrounding it, however, intertwine with the s. 10 issue that was considered by the Provincial Court. Thus the delegate s determination which is the foundation for these proceedings, was broader than the court order. [60] Second, in her 2008-filed complaint Ms. Tagirova did not seek to evade the effect of a court order: she first engaged proceedings concerning her contract with ICN, doing so about two years before the trial in the Provincial Court, after which the Director, and then the delegate, simply performed their roles under the Act. If there was any attacking in a collateral way, it appears to me to result from ICN s commencement of court proceedings after it had been engaged in responding to Ms. Tagirova s Employment Standards Act complaint. [61] I recognize that it may be said that Ms. Tagirova s second filed complaint has a different character because it challenged the court order. Nonetheless it was not the primary complaint before the delegate who, properly, resolved the 2008 complaints with her order and then declined to allow Ms. Tagirova s second complaint. I do not see it as an improper collateral attack. Were it necessary, however, I would not interfere with the administrative law processes for the reasons stated in paragraphs 82 through 85 following. [62] In my view, it cannot be said that the Director, in pressing the complaints to a conclusion, engaged in an impermissible collateral attack upon the Provincial Court judgment. The complainants were entitled to look to the Director to resolve their complaints properly filed. 3. Res Judicata [63] The appellants contend that the issue of enforceability of ICN s contracts with Ms. Tagirova and Ms. Baranova was res judicata by the court order and therefore was beyond an independent and different view by the Director or Tribunal. They say this means the reconsideration decision is patently unreasonable and the judge was wrong.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: Gorenshtein v. British Columbia (Employment Standards Tribunal), 2013 BCSC 1499 Date: 20130819 Docket: S130604 Registry: Vancouver Tatiana Gorenshtein

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Cariboo Gur Sikh Temple Society (1979) v. British Columbia (Employment Standards Tribunal), 2016 BCSC 1622 Between: Cariboo Gur Sikh Temple Society (1979)

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Cal-terra Developments Ltd. v. Hunter, 2017 BCSC 1320 Date: 20170728 Docket: 15-4976 Registry: Victoria Re: Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.B.C. 1996,

More information

2008 BCCA 404 Get Acceptance Corporation v. British Columbia (Registrar of Mortgage Br...

2008 BCCA 404 Get Acceptance Corporation v. British Columbia (Registrar of Mortgage Br... Page 1 of 7 COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Get Acceptance Corporation v. British Columbia (Registrar of Mortgage Brokers), 2008 BCCA 404 Get Acceptance Corporation and Keith

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And And Before: Burnaby (City) v. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, 2014 BCCA 465 City of Burnaby Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC The National Energy Board

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Scott v. British Columbia (The Police Complaint Commissioner), 2017 BCSC 961 Jason Scott Date: 20170609 Docket: S164838 Registry: Vancouver

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE YUKON TERRITORY

COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE YUKON TERRITORY COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE YUKON TERRITORY Citation: Between: And And Yukon v. McBee, 2010 YKCA 8 Government of Yukon Yukon Human Rights Commission Donna McBee a.k.a. Donna Molloy and Yukon Human Rights Board

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Canwood International Inc. v. Bork, 2013 BCCA 96 Canwood International Inc. Date: 20130305 Docket: CA040052 Appellant (Petitioner) Olaf Bork,

More information

A View From the Bench Administrative Law

A View From the Bench Administrative Law A View From the Bench Administrative Law Justice David Farrar Nova Scotia Court of Appeal With the Assistance of James Charlton, Law Clerk Nova Scotia Court of Appeal Court of Appeal for Ontario: Mavi

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Garber v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 BCCA 385 Date: 20150916 Dockets: CA41883, CA41919, CA41920 Docket: CA41883 Between: And Kevin Garber Respondent

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: West Vancouver Police Department v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2016 BCSC 934 Date: 20160525 Docket: S152619 Registry: Vancouver

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Law Society of B.C. v. Bryfogle, 2006 BCSC 1092 Between: And: The Law Society of British Columbia Date: 20060609 Docket: L052318 Registry: Vancouver Petitioner

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Larc Developments Ltd. v. Levelton Engineering Ltd., 2010 BCCA 18 Commonwealth Insurance Company Larc Developments Ltd. and Rita A. Carle Date:

More information

Perspective National Administrative Law, Labour & Employment Law and Privacy & Thora Sigurdson Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP

Perspective National Administrative Law, Labour & Employment Law and Privacy & Thora Sigurdson Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP Administrative Law Update A West Coast Perspective 2010 National Administrative Law, Labour & Employment Law and Privacy & Access Law Conference Thora Sigurdson Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP Introduction

More information

CBABC POSITION PAPER ON THE CIVIL RESOLUTION TRIBUNAL AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 (BILL 22) Prepared by: Canadian Bar Association, BC Branch

CBABC POSITION PAPER ON THE CIVIL RESOLUTION TRIBUNAL AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 (BILL 22) Prepared by: Canadian Bar Association, BC Branch CBABC POSITION PAPER ON THE CIVIL RESOLUTION TRIBUNAL AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 (BILL 22) Prepared by: Canadian Bar Association, BC Branch May 8, 2018 Introduction In April 2012, the government of British Columbia

More information

Administrative Law Update A West Coast Perspective

Administrative Law Update A West Coast Perspective Administrative Law Update A West Coast Perspective These materials were prepared by Thora Sigurdson of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, Vancouver, BC, for the 2010 National Administrative Law, Labour & Employment

More information

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO DECISION

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO DECISION HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO B E T W E E N: Amanda Kerr Applicant -and- Global TeleSales of Canada Inc. Respondent DECISION Adjudicator: Eric Whist Date: October 9, 2012 File Number: 2011-09375-I Citation:

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Between: Date: 20120215 Docket: CA039639 Ingrid Andrea Franzke And Appellant (Petitioner) Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal Respondent (Defendant) Before: The Honourable

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: R. v. Plummer, 2017 BCSC 1579 Date: 20170906 Docket: 27081 Registry: Vancouver Regina v. Scott Plummer Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Bowden

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Bartram v. Glaxosmithkline Inc., 2011 BCCA 539 Date: Docket: CA Meah Bartra

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Bartram v. Glaxosmithkline Inc., 2011 BCCA 539 Date: Docket: CA Meah Bartra COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Bartram v. Glaxosmithkline Inc., 2011 BCCA 539 Date: 20111230 Docket: CA039373 Meah Bartram, an Infant by her Mother and Litigation Guardian,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 2011 BCSC 112 British Columbia (Attorney General) v. British Columbia (Information a... Page 1 of 24 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And British Columbia (Attorney General)

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: British Columbia (Ministry of Justice) v. Maddock, 2015 BCSC 746 Date: 20150423 Docket: 14-3365 Registry: Victoria In the matter of the decisions of the

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Bentley v. The Police Complaint Commissioner, 2012 BCSC 106 Craig Bentley and John Grywinski Date: 20120125 Docket: S110977 Registry: Vancouver

More information

2007 BCSC 569 Holland v. Northwest Fuels Ltd. et al. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Holland v. Northwest Fuels Ltd.

2007 BCSC 569 Holland v. Northwest Fuels Ltd. et al. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Holland v. Northwest Fuels Ltd. 2007 BCSC 569 Holland v. Northwest Fuels Ltd. et al IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Holland v. Northwest Fuels Ltd. et al, 2007 BCSC 569 Date: 20070426 Docket: S056479 Registry: Vancouver

More information

Environmental Appeal Board

Environmental Appeal Board Environmental Appeal Board Fourth Floor 747 Fort Street Victoria British Columbia Telephone: (250) 387-3464 Facsimile: (250) 356-9923 Mailing Address: PO Box 9425 Stn Prov Govt Victoria BC V8W 9V1 DECISION

More information

Order COLLEGE OF OPTICIANS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Order COLLEGE OF OPTICIANS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Order 02-35 COLLEGE OF OPTICIANS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner July 16, 2002 Quicklaw Cite: [2002] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 35 Document URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/order02-35.pdf

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Westergaard v. Registrar of Mortgage Brokers, 2010 BCSC 912 Keith Bryan Westergaard and GET Acceptance Corporation Registrar of Mortgage

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Sahyoun v. British Columbia (Employment and Assistance Appeal Tribunal), 2012 BCSC 1306 Dr. Nabil Riad Sahyoun Employment and Assistance

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And And Before: Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc. v. Wedgemount Power Limited Partnership, 2018 BCCA 283 Date: 20180709 Dockets:

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Society of Fort Langley Residents for Sustainable Development v. Langley (Township), 2013 BCSC 2273 Date: 20131211 Docket: S26696 Registry: Chilliwack

More information

BOARD OF VARIANCE ORDERS AND ISSUES. Sandra Carter & Pam Jefcoat. Valkyrie Law Group LLP. October 2009

BOARD OF VARIANCE ORDERS AND ISSUES. Sandra Carter & Pam Jefcoat. Valkyrie Law Group LLP. October 2009 BOARD OF VARIANCE ORDERS AND ISSUES Sandra Carter & Pam Jefcoat Valkyrie Law Group LLP October 2009 This paper reviews certain aspects of the role and jurisdiction of the Board of Variance (the Board )

More information

THE LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. In the matter of the Legal Profession Act, SBC 1998, c. 9. and a hearing concerning GEORGE COUTLEE RESPONDENT

THE LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. In the matter of the Legal Profession Act, SBC 1998, c. 9. and a hearing concerning GEORGE COUTLEE RESPONDENT 2018 LSBC 33 Decision issued: November 16, 2018 Citation issued: July 13, 2017 THE LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA In the matter of the Legal Profession Act, SBC 1998, c. 9 and a hearing concerning GEORGE

More information

Consultation with First Nations and Accommodation Obligations

Consultation with First Nations and Accommodation Obligations Consultation with First Nations and Accommodation Obligations John J.L. Hunter, Q.C. prepared for a conference on the Impact of the Haida and Taku River Decisions presented by the Pacific Business and

More information

Case Name: R. v Ontario Inc. Between Ontario Inc., Lawrence Ryan, Pierre Jacques, applicants, and Her Majesty the Queen, respondents

Case Name: R. v Ontario Inc. Between Ontario Inc., Lawrence Ryan, Pierre Jacques, applicants, and Her Majesty the Queen, respondents Case Name: R. v. 1353837 Ontario Inc. Between 1353837 Ontario Inc., Lawrence Ryan, Pierre Jacques, applicants, and Her Majesty the Queen, respondents [2005] O.J. No. 166 [2005] O.T.C. 34 63 W.C.B. (2d)

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL) WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL. - and

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL) WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL. - and COURT FILE NO. 36300 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL) BETWEEN: AND BETWEEN: WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL - and FRASER HEALTH AUTHORITY, KATRINA

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: PHS Community Services Society v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 BCSC 1453 Date: 20081031 Docket: S075547 Registry: Vancouver Between: PHS Community

More information

Khosa: Extending and Clarifying Dunsmuir

Khosa: Extending and Clarifying Dunsmuir Khosa: Extending and Clarifying Dunsmuir Andrew Wray, Pinto Wray James LLP Christian Vernon, Pinto Wray James LLP [awray@pintowrayjames.com] [cvernon@pintowrayjames.com] Introduction The Supreme Court

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Daryl-Evans v. Empl. Standards Date: 20020111 2002 BCSC 48 Docket: L003189 Registry: Vancouver IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: DARYL-EVANS MECHANICAL LTD. AND: PETITIONER DIRECTOR

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Hunt v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 2556, 2018 BCCA 159 Between: And Anthony Hunt and Brenda Hunt The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 2556 Date: 20180426 Docket:

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR YUKON

COURT OF APPEAL FOR YUKON COURT OF APPEAL FOR YUKON Citation: Between: And Ross River Dena Council v. Government of Yukon, 2012 YKCA 14 Ross River Dena Council Government of Yukon Date: 20121227 Docket: 11-YU689 Appellant (Plaintiff)

More information

In the Court of Appeal of Alberta

In the Court of Appeal of Alberta In the Court of Appeal of Alberta Citation: Donn Larsen Development Ltd. v. The Church of Scientology of Alberta, 2007 ABCA 376 Date: 20071123 Docket: 0703-0259-AC Registry: Edmonton Between: Donn Larsen

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: Yahey v. British Columbia, 2018 BCSC 278 Date: 20180226 Docket: S151727 Registry: Vancouver Marvin Yahey on his own behalf and on behalf of all

More information

Wilman v. Northwest Territories (Financial Management Board..., 1997 CarswellNWT CarswellNWT 81, [1997] N.W.T.J. No. 17

Wilman v. Northwest Territories (Financial Management Board..., 1997 CarswellNWT CarswellNWT 81, [1997] N.W.T.J. No. 17 1997 CarswellNWT 81 Northwest Territories Supreme Court Wilman v. Northwest Territories (Financial Management Board Secretariat) David Wilman, Applicant and The Commissioner of the Northwest Territories

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN BRIAN MOORE. And PUBLIC SERVICES CREDIT UNION CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN BRIAN MOORE. And PUBLIC SERVICES CREDIT UNION CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV 2010-03257 BETWEEN BRIAN MOORE Claimant And PUBLIC SERVICES CREDIT UNION CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED Defendant Before the Honourable

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL) NELL TOUSSAINT. and

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL) NELL TOUSSAINT. and S.C.C. File No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL) BETWEEN: NELL TOUSSAINT Applicant Appellant and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent Respondent

More information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT FERRIER, SWINTON & LEDERER JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Applicant.

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT FERRIER, SWINTON & LEDERER JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Applicant. CITATION: St. Catharines (City v. IPCO, 2011 ONSC 346 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 351/09 DATE: 20110316 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT FERRIER, SWINTON & LEDERER JJ. B E T W E E N: THE

More information

NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Skinner v. Nova Scotia (Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal), 2018 NSCA 23

NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Skinner v. Nova Scotia (Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal), 2018 NSCA 23 NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Skinner v. Nova Scotia (Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal), 2018 NSCA 23 Date: 20180309 Docket: CA 449275 Registry: Halifax Between: Wayne Skinner v. Workers Compensation

More information

Indexed as: Sandringham Place Inc. v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission) Between Sandringham Place Inc. et al., and Ontario Human Rights Commission

Indexed as: Sandringham Place Inc. v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission) Between Sandringham Place Inc. et al., and Ontario Human Rights Commission Indexed as: Sandringham Place Inc. v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission) Between Sandringham Place Inc. et al., and Ontario Human Rights Commission [2001] O.J. No. 2733 202 D.L.R. (4th) 301 148 O.A.C. 280

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Gosselin v. Shepherd, 2010 BCSC 755 April Gosselin Date: 20100527 Docket: S104306 Registry: New Westminster Plaintiff Mark Shepherd and Dr.

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: Cowichan Tribes v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 BCSC 1660 Date: 20160908 Docket: 14-1027 Registry: Victoria Cowichan Tribes, Squtxulenuhw,

More information

Information Brief. British Columbia Law Institute Workplace Dispute Resolution Consultation. British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal

Information Brief. British Columbia Law Institute Workplace Dispute Resolution Consultation. British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal Suite 1170, 605 Robson St. Vancouver BC V6B 5J3 Phone: (604) 775-2000 Toll Free: 1-888-440-8844 TTY: (604) 775-2021 FAX: (604) 775-2020 Internet: www.bchrt.bc.ca

More information

Uniform Arbitration Act

Uniform Arbitration Act 2-1 Uniform Law Conference of Canada Uniform Act 2-2 Table of Contents INTRODUCTORY MATTERS 1 Definitions 2 Application of Act 3 Contracting out 4 Waiver of right to object 5 agreements COURT INTERVENTION

More information

Citation: R v Van Wissen, 2018 MBCA 100 Date: Docket: AR IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA

Citation: R v Van Wissen, 2018 MBCA 100 Date: Docket: AR IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Citation: R v Van Wissen, 2018 MBCA 100 Date: 20181004 Docket: AR16-30-08579 BETWEEN: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA ) D. Matas and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ) M. D. Glazer ) for the Appellant ) Respondent

More information

HEARD: Before the Honourable Justice A. David MacAdam, at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on May 25 & June 15, 2000

HEARD: Before the Honourable Justice A. David MacAdam, at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on May 25 & June 15, 2000 Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission) v. Sam's Place et al. Date: [20000803] Docket: [SH No. 163186] 1999 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA BETWEEN: THE NOVA SCOTIA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION APPLICANT

More information

Order F17-40 BRITISH COLUMBIA TRANSIT CORPORATION. Celia Francis Adjudicator. September 25, 2017

Order F17-40 BRITISH COLUMBIA TRANSIT CORPORATION. Celia Francis Adjudicator. September 25, 2017 Order F17-40 BRITISH COLUMBIA TRANSIT CORPORATION Celia Francis Adjudicator September 25, 2017 CanLII Cite: 2017 BCIPC 44 Quicklaw Cite: [2017] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 44 Summary: A BC Transit driver requested

More information

The Exercise of Statutory Discretion

The Exercise of Statutory Discretion The Exercise of Statutory Discretion CACOLE Conference June 9, 2009 Professor Lorne Sossin University of Toronto, Faculty of Law R. Lester Jesudason Chair, Nova Scotia Police Review Board Tom Bell Counsel,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And The Council of the Haida Nation v. British Columbia, 2017 BCSC 1665 The Council of the Haida Nation and Peter Lantin, suing on his own behalf

More information

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Hyson v. Nova Scotia (Public Service LTD), 2016 NSSC 153

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Hyson v. Nova Scotia (Public Service LTD), 2016 NSSC 153 SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Hyson v. Nova Scotia (Public Service LTD), 2016 NSSC 153 Date: 2016-06-16 Docket: Hfx No. 447446 Registry: Halifax Between: Annette Louise Hyson Applicant v. Nova

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2015

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2015 CLAIM No. 292 of 2014 BETWEEN: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2015 IN THE MATTER OF Section 113 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, Chapter 91 of the Laws of Belize AND IN THE MATTER OF an Application

More information

GUTSCHE FAMILY INVESTMENTS (PTY) LIMITED

GUTSCHE FAMILY INVESTMENTS (PTY) LIMITED IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH CASE NO: 4490/2015 DATE HEARD: 02/03/2017 DATE DELIVERED: 30/03/2017 In the matter between GUTSCHE FAMILY INVESTMENTS (PTY)

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Weir s Construction Limited v. Warford (Estate), 2018 NLCA 5 Date: January 22, 2018 Docket: 201601H0092 BETWEEN: WEIR S CONSTRUCTION

More information

ON SECOND THOUGHT: REPEAL, RESCISSION, AND RECONSIDERATION IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE NOVEMBER 29, 2013.

ON SECOND THOUGHT: REPEAL, RESCISSION, AND RECONSIDERATION IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE NOVEMBER 29, 2013. ON SECOND THOUGHT: REPEAL, RESCISSION, AND RECONSIDERATION IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE NOVEMBER 29, 2013 Bill Buholzer 1 ON SECOND THOUGHT: REPEAL, RESCISSION, AND RECONSIDERATION IN LOCAL

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Geller v. Sable Resources Ltd., 2014 BCSC 171 Date: 20140203 Docket: S108380 Registry: Vancouver Between: And Jan Geller Sable Resources Ltd. Plaintiff

More information

Decision F07-03 MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner. June 22, 2007

Decision F07-03 MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner. June 22, 2007 Decision F07-03 MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner June 22, 2007 Quicklaw Cite: [2007] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 14 Document URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/other_decisions/decisionfo7-03.pdf

More information

SASKATCHEWAN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW UPDATE

SASKATCHEWAN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW UPDATE SASKATCHEWAN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW UPDATE Larry Seiferling, Q.C., Partner, McDougall Gauley LLP Angela Giroux, Associate, McDougall Gauley LLP (a) Introduction There are few, if any, issues that have arisen

More information

Order F Ministry of Justice. Hamish Flanagan Adjudicator. March 18, 2015

Order F Ministry of Justice. Hamish Flanagan Adjudicator. March 18, 2015 Order F15-12 Ministry of Justice Hamish Flanagan Adjudicator March 18, 2015 CanLII Cite: 2015 BCIPC 12 Quicklaw Cite: [2015] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 12 Summary: The applicant requested records from the Ministry

More information

Reasons: Decisons, Orders and Rulings

Reasons: Decisons, Orders and Rulings Chapter 3 Reasons: Decisons, Orders Rulings 3.1 Reasons 2.1.1 Judith Marcella Manning, Timothy Edward Manning, William Douglas Elik, Mary Martha Fritz Jill Christine Bolton COURT FILE NO: 784/95 787/95

More information

Order BRITISH COLUMBIA GAMING COMISSION

Order BRITISH COLUMBIA GAMING COMISSION Order 01-12 BRITISH COLUMBIA GAMING COMISSION David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner April 9, 2001 Quicklaw Cite: [2000] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 13 Order URL: http://www.oipcbc.org/orders/order01-12.html

More information

Administrative Law Update Adele J. Adamic Legal Services Branch, Ministry of Justice BC Council of Administrative Tribunals.

Administrative Law Update Adele J. Adamic Legal Services Branch, Ministry of Justice BC Council of Administrative Tribunals. Administrative Law Update 2015 Adele J. Adamic Legal Services Branch, Ministry of Justice BC Council of Administrative Tribunals 1 Annual Conference Administrative Law is not for sissies Hon. Antonin Scalia,

More information

THE ROYAL NEWFOUNDLAND CONSTABULARY PUBLIC COMPLAINTS COMMISSION CST. EDMUND OATES

THE ROYAL NEWFOUNDLAND CONSTABULARY PUBLIC COMPLAINTS COMMISSION CST. EDMUND OATES IN THE MATTER OF s. 28 of The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act, 1992, S.N.L. 1992, c. R-17, as amended AND IN THE MATTER OF a Complaint by Wayne Thompson, dated 8 August, 2001 BETWEEN: THE ROYAL NEWFOUNDLAND

More information

The MacMillan Bloedel Settlement Agreement

The MacMillan Bloedel Settlement Agreement The MacMillan Bloedel Settlement Agreement Submissions to Mr. David Perry Jessica Clogg, Staff Counsel West Coast Environmental Law JUNE 30, 1999 Introduction The following submissions build upon and clarify

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And: Varner v. Vancouver (City), 2009 BCSC 333 Gary Varner Date: 20090226 Docket: S032834 Registry: Vancouver Plaintiff John Doe and Richard

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: The Law Society of British Columbia v. Parsons, 2015 BCSC 742 Date: 20150506 Docket: S151214 Registry: Vancouver Between: The Law Society of British Columbia

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Pratten v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2010 BCSC 1444 Olivia Pratten Date: 20101015 Docket: S087449 Registry: Vancouver Plaintiff

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: Lieberman et al. v. Business Development Bank of Canada, 2005 BCSC 389 Date: 20050318 Docket: L041024 Registry: Vancouver Lucien Lieberman and

More information

Weir v. Canada (Registrar of Firearms), 2008 ABPC 18,

Weir v. Canada (Registrar of Firearms), 2008 ABPC 18, The Shotgun Approach to Judicial Review By Jonnette Watson Hamilton and Shaun Fluker Weir v. Canada (Registrar of Firearms), 2008 ABPC 18, http://www2.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/2003-/pc/civil/2008/2008abpc0018.pdf

More information

Indexed As: Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.) v. Human Rights Tribunal (B.C.) et al.

Indexed As: Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.) v. Human Rights Tribunal (B.C.) et al. Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia (appellant) v. Guiseppe Figliola, Kimberley Sallis, Barry Dearden and British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (respondents) and Attorney General of British

More information

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: British Columbia (Workers Compensation Board) v. Figliola, 2011 SCC 52 DATE: 20111027 DOCKET: 33648 BETWEEN: Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia Appellant and

More information

A RE-FORMULATION OF THE INTERJURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITY DOCTRINE

A RE-FORMULATION OF THE INTERJURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITY DOCTRINE A RE-FORMULATION OF THE INTERJURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITY DOCTRINE Case comment on: Canadian Western Bank v. Alberta 2007 SCC 22; and British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Lafarge 2007 SCC 23. Presented To:

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. Reasons for Judgment Respecting Costs

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. Reasons for Judgment Respecting Costs IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Re: Section 29 of the Court Order Enforcement Act and the Registration of a Foreign Judgment Against John Tolman, Mrs. John Tolman, Bob Alpen and Mrs. Bob Alpen

More information

THE ASSINIBOINE SOUTH TEACHERS ' ASSOCIATION OF THE MANITOBA TEACHERS' SOCIETY (Applicant) Respondent. - and -

THE ASSINIBOINE SOUTH TEACHERS ' ASSOCIATION OF THE MANITOBA TEACHERS' SOCIETY (Applicant) Respondent. - and - IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Philp, Twaddle and Kroft JJ.A. Citation: Assiniboine South Teachers' Association v. Assiniboine South School Division No. 3, 2000 MBCA 9 Date: 20000616 Docket:

More information

Uniform Class Proceedings Act

Uniform Class Proceedings Act 8-1 Uniform Law Conference of Canada Uniform Class Proceedings Act 8-2 Table of Contents PART I: DEFINITIONS 1 Definitions PART II: CERTIFICATION 2 Plaintiff s class proceeding 3 Defendant s class proceeding

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: ST. KITTS NEVIS ANGUILLA NATIONAL BANK LIMITED. and CARIBBEAN 6/49 LIMITED

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: ST. KITTS NEVIS ANGUILLA NATIONAL BANK LIMITED. and CARIBBEAN 6/49 LIMITED SAINT CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS CIVIL APPEAL NO.6 OF 2002 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: ST. KITTS NEVIS ANGUILLA NATIONAL BANK LIMITED and CARIBBEAN 6/49 LIMITED Appellant Respondent Before: The Hon. Mr.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN THE CHIEF FIRE OFFICER THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND SUMAIR MOHAN

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN THE CHIEF FIRE OFFICER THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND SUMAIR MOHAN REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Civil Appeal No: 45 of 2008 BETWEEN THE CHIEF FIRE OFFICER THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION APPELLANTS AND SUMAIR MOHAN RESPONDENT PANEL: A. Mendonça,

More information

Alberta (Attorney General) v. Krushell, 2003 ABQB 252 Date: Action No

Alberta (Attorney General) v. Krushell, 2003 ABQB 252 Date: Action No Alberta (Attorney General) v. Krushell, 2003 ABQB 252 Date: 20030318 Action No. 0203 19075 IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON IN THE MATTER OF the Freedom of Information

More information

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT Appellant. ALAVINE FELIUIA LIU Respondent. Randerson, Harrison and Miller JJ

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT Appellant. ALAVINE FELIUIA LIU Respondent. Randerson, Harrison and Miller JJ IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA754/2012 [2014] NZCA 37 BETWEEN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT Appellant ALAVINE FELIUIA LIU Respondent Hearing: 5 February

More information

SUPREME COURT OF YUKON

SUPREME COURT OF YUKON SUPREME COURT OF YUKON Citation: Yukon Human Rights Commission v. Yukon Human Rights Board of Adjudication, Property Management Agency and Yukon Government, 2009 YKSC 44 Date: 20090501 Docket No.: 08-AP004

More information

CITATION: Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters v. Ontario, 2015 ONSC 7969 COURT FILE NO.: 318/15 DATE:

CITATION: Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters v. Ontario, 2015 ONSC 7969 COURT FILE NO.: 318/15 DATE: CITATION: Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters v. Ontario, 2015 ONSC 7969 COURT FILE NO.: 318/15 DATE: 20151218 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: ONTARIO FEDERATION OF ANGLERS AND HUNTERS, Applicant

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Director of Civil Forfeiture v. Lloydsmith, 2014 BCCA 72 Date: 20140221 Docket: CA040891; CA040896 Civil Forfeiture Action in Rem Against The Lands and Structures

More information

PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION

PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Date: 19980707 Docket: GSC-16600 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: ADMINISTRATOR OF THE PRIVATE TRAINING SCHOOLS ACT, R.S.P.E.I. 1988,

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Unrau v. McSween, 2013 BCCA 343 William Unrau Date: 20130717 Docket: CA040345 and CA040885 Appellant (Plaintiff) Robert D. McSween and James

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And The Owners Strata Plan LMS 2768 v. Jordison, 2013 BCCA 484 The Owners Strata Plan LMS 2768 Rose Jordison and Jordy Jordison Date: 20131112 Docket:

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Date: 19980710 Docket: S046974 Registry: New Westminster IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: DEREK PAGET AND PAKAR HOMES LTD. PETITIONER AND: VERNOR KARPINSKI RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

More information

Supreme Court of Canada considers sanctions imposed by Securities Regulators -- Re: Cartaway Resources Corp, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 672 Douglas Worndl

Supreme Court of Canada considers sanctions imposed by Securities Regulators -- Re: Cartaway Resources Corp, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 672 Douglas Worndl Supreme Court of Canada considers sanctions imposed by Securities Regulators -- Re: Cartaway Resources Corp, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 672 Douglas Worndl February 2005 In April of 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada

More information

IN THE MATTER OF THE SECURITIES ACT R.S.O. 1990, C. S.5, AS AMENDED - AND. IN THE MATTER OF DAVID CHARLES PHILLIPS and JOHN RUSSELL WILSON

IN THE MATTER OF THE SECURITIES ACT R.S.O. 1990, C. S.5, AS AMENDED - AND. IN THE MATTER OF DAVID CHARLES PHILLIPS and JOHN RUSSELL WILSON Ontario Commission des 22 nd Floor 22e étage Securities valeurs mobilières 20 Queen Street West 20, rue queen ouest Commission de l Ontario Toronto ON M5H 3S8 Toronto ON M5H 3S8 IN THE MATTER OF THE SECURITIES

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And A & G Investment Inc. v. 0915630 B.C. Ltd., 2013 BCSC 1784 A & G Investment Inc. 0915630 B.C. Ltd. Date: 20130927 Docket: S132980 Registry:

More information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT J. WILSON, KARAKATSANIS, AND BRYANT JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT J. WILSON, KARAKATSANIS, AND BRYANT JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Ministry of Attorney General and Toronto Star and Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, 2010 ONSC 991 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 34/09 DATE: 20100326 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Belron Canada Inc. v. TCG International Inc., 2009 BCCA 577 Belron Canada Incorporated/Belron Canada Incorporee Date: 20091217 Docket: CA037131

More information

Page: 2 In the Matter of In the Matter of the Workers Compensation Act, R.S.A. 2000, c.w-15, As Amended ( WCA ) And in the Matter of a Decision by the

Page: 2 In the Matter of In the Matter of the Workers Compensation Act, R.S.A. 2000, c.w-15, As Amended ( WCA ) And in the Matter of a Decision by the Court of Queen s Bench of Alberta Citation: Homes by Avi Ltd. v. Alberta (Workers Compensation Board, Appeals Commission), 2007 ABQB 203 Date: 20070326 Docket: 0603 14909, 0603 14405, 0603 12833 Registry:

More information

5.9 PRIVATE PROSECUTIONS

5.9 PRIVATE PROSECUTIONS OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS GUIDELINE OF THE DIRECTOR ISSUED UNDER SECTION 3(3)(c) OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS ACT March 1, 2014 -2- TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION... 2

More information