COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA"

Transcription

1 Date: Docket: CI (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Sekhon v. Minister of Education and Training Cited as: 2018 MBQB 99 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA B E T W E E N: NARINDER KAUR SEKHON, ) Counsel: ) applicant, ) ) DAVID MATAS for the applicant - and - ) MINISTER OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING, respondent. ) T. DAVID GISSER ) ) ) ) ) MYRIAM HACAULT (Articling Student) for the respondent JUDGMENT DELIVERED: JUNE 12, 2018 KROFT J. I. INTRODUCTION [1] The applicant seeks an order of certiorari, quashing the respondent s decision that her application to the Manitoba Provincial Nominee Program (MPNP) did not meet the eligibility requirement. The applicant alleges the process was unfair and the decision was unreasonable. I refer to the respondent and the MPNP interchangeably. [2] For the reasons that follow, I dismiss the application.

2 2 II. FACTS [3] The applicant is a foreign national of India. She is a food supervisor and cook. Her hope is to become a permanent resident of Canada. Her chosen path to permanent residency was the MPNP for Skilled Workers. 1 [4] Although the overall structure for becoming a permanent resident is created by the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, and its regulations, the parameters for nominating foreign nationals in Manitoba are set out in a document entitled Canada-Manitoba Immigration Agreement June 2003 (Immigration Agreement). The federal legislation and Immigration Agreement contemplate that the Government of the Province of Manitoba (respondent) will determine its own policies and procedures for assessing applicants under the MPNP. Even if a nomination certificate is issued by the respondent in respect of an applicant, it is the federal government that ultimately decides whether permanent resident status will be granted or not. [5] On July 24, 2014, the applicant applied to the MPNP for a nomination certificate. The application identified Gurmeet Singh Gill as her Manitoba supporter. That same day, the MPNP sent an to Mr. Gill setting out the specific steps to follow so the application could advance. The reads as follows: 1 The provincial nominee class is one of many avenues through which a foreign national may become a permanent resident.

3 3 We are writing in reference to NARINDER KAUR SEKHON s online application to the Manitoba Provincial Nominee Program for Skilled Workers (MPNP) received on 7/24/2014. The applicant has identified you as their Manitoba Supporter for the purposes of their application to the MPNP and has indicated you will complete an MPNP form called Settlement Plan Part 2. Settlement Plan Part 2 asks [you to] describe how you will help the applicant achieve their plan to settle and become employed in Manitoba as a permanent resident. Instructions: If the applicant has not ed you a copy of their completed Settlement Plan Part 1, request that they do so. You will need to review the applicant s Settlement Plan before you complete Part 2. Download the form, Settlement Plan Part 2. Print, complete and sign the form. Send the form, along with the requested supporting documents, as attachments in an to mpnpsupporter@gov.mb.ca. Or, you can deliver printed copies to the MPNP office in Winnipeg. Our address is listed on the form. Failure to send the completed and signed Settlement Plan Part 2 to the MPNP within 30 days of receipt of this message will result in closure of the applicant s file. [Emphasis added.] [6] The shows it came from no-reply@gov.mb.ca. [7] On August 22, 2014, at 5:51 p.m., Mr. Gill purported to submit the Settlement Plan Part 2 form identified in the July 24, from the MPNP. It is undisputed that Mr. Gill sent the Settlement Plan Part 2 form to the wrong address. Instead of sending it to mpnpsupporter@gov.mb.ca as directed, he sent it to no-reply@gov.mb.ca. It is also undisputed that at 5:53 p.m., two

4 4 minutes after sending the Settlement Plan Part 2 form, Mr. Gill received a bounce-back message advising: Delivery has failed to these recipients or groups: no-reply@gov.mb.ca The address you entered couldn t be found. Please check the recipient s address and try to resend the message. If the problem continues, please contact your helpdesk. [Emphasis in original.] [8] Mr. Gill did not follow up at that time or at any time. There is no evidence that the MPNP received Mr. Gill s documentation. It is Mr. Gill s evidence that, despite the bounce-back message, he did not know about the failed delivery. [9] The next communication from any party was a letter dated January 15, 2016, from the MPNP to the applicant advising, among other things: In order to be eligible to apply to the MPNP, you must demonstrate that you have legal status if residing in Canada and that you have a connection to Manitoba, through current/prior employment or studies in the province, or friends/family in Manitoba who are supporting your application. We have pre-screened your application and wish to advise it does not meet the eligibility criteria for the following reason(s): -You did not demonstrate proof of your connection to Manitoba as outlined in the eligibility criteria. Specifically, your Manitoba supporter did not provide signed and completed Settlement Plan Part 2, proof of residence in Canada and Manitoba Health card; these must be submitted within 30 days after application submission. [Emphasis in original.] You may wish to reapply provided you can demonstrate you meet the MPNP eligibility criteria at that time.

5 5 [10] As noted in paragraph 4 of these reasons, it is the role of the respondent to establish the policies and procedures for assessing applicants under the MPNP. The policies and procedures in force when the applicant applied for permanent residency were adopted in 2008 (2008 policies). The 2008 policies governed until April 30, 2015, at which time they were replaced with updated policies and procedures (2015 policies). I will not reproduce all 17 pages of the 2008 policies. However, I do note the following: Nominations are granted at the sole discretion of the Province of Manitoba (at p. 3). Applicants are responsible for providing full and complete applications and for proving the validity of documentation and their bona fides with regard to all aspects of their application (at p. 3). Aspects of the MPNP organization structure include (at pp. 5-6): o Program officers are responsible for assessing individual applications. o Pre-assessment/administrative officers pre-assess all applications and, at intake, prior to file creation, screen applications for (a) eligibility, and (b) level of completeness acceptable for intake. o Pre-assessment/administrative officers apply consistent MPNP policies and procedures related to confirmation on individual applications for:

6 6 program eligibility (applicant documents an established connection to Manitoba, through family, friends, a pre-approved job offer, current employment in Manitoba, previous education or work experience in Manitoba) stream eligibility (applicant meets core criteria of stream in which application has been submitted) The stages that applications proceed through include (at pp. 8-11): o intake (by pre-assessment/administrative officers) o file distribution o first assessment (by program officers) o second assessment (by program officers) At the pre-assessment stage, the pre-assessment/administrative officers ensure only eligible and complete applications are accepted to move to the assessment stages. If, at intake, the application is too incomplete or does not meet core criteria of the MPNP, it is returned to the applicant with an ineligible/incomplete letter, describing why the application was not accepted (at p. 8). 2 2 This is the type of letter that was sent to the applicant in this case.

7 7 Once an application passes pre-assessment and is taken in, it moves to the first assessment stage where a program officer reviews it for eligibility, completeness, potential for approval, and document integrity (at pp. 8-11). At the second assessment stage, the application is further reviewed by a different program officer (at p. 11). During the second assessment stage, a program officer may refuse an application and issue a refusal letter (at p. 11). If a refusal letter issues, the applicant may request, in writing, a formal review, identifying the errors allegedly committed by the program officer (at p. 16). [11] The 2015 policies retain the three stages of assessment. They also introduce to the assessment stages (not to the pre-assessment stage) a procedural fairness letter, which replaces the refusal letter. Specifically, the fairness letter issues where, following the first assessment, an application is being considered for refusal. Where a fairness letter is sent to an applicant, the applicant has 30 days to address the concerns raised in the letter. [12] Neither the 2008 policies nor the 2015 policies provide a right to appeal the MPNP s ultimate decision. [13] Back to the chronology of events.

8 8 [14] On January 16, 2016, in response to the pre-assessment ineligibility letter dated January 15, 2016 (reproduced in part in paragraph 9 of these reasons), Mr. Gill ed the MPNP requesting the application be reopened. By dated January 21, 2016, the MPNP advised: The application will remain closed, but the applicant can reapply at any time. It was the applicant s responsibility to ensure her application was complete when it was submitted. Mr. Gill had received written instructions explaining what information to submit and where to submit it. [15] The applicant has not reapplied to the MPNP and submits that due to changes to the MPNP since first applying, her chances of being nominated under the MPNP are reduced. III. ANALYSIS A. Issues [16] In her brief, the applicant defines the issues as: 1. The MPNP committed procedural unfairness by: a. not issuing a fairness letter to the applicant; b. taking advantage of a mistake by the applicant or creating a trap for the unwary. 2. The pre-assessment ineligibility decision and the closing of the file was unreasonable.

9 9 [17] In its brief, the respondent defines the issues as: 1. There was no decision to review. 2. If there was a decision, it was a policy decision and not reviewable. 3. If there was a reviewable decision, there was no breach of procedural fairness. 4. If there was a reviewable decision, the decision itself was reasonable. [18] I adopt the respondent s definition of issues. In so doing, I am not disregarding the applicant s issues. To the contrary. In my view, the applicant s issues are subsumed in the respondent s issue list. 1. There was no decision to review. [19] Before addressing this issue, there is a related but distinct question that arose during submissions: what decision am I reviewing? [20] During oral submissions and in her brief, the applicant suggests the relevant decision is the MPNP s January 21, refusing Mr. Gill s January 16, request to reopen the application. However, in her notice of application, the decision under review is stated to be the January 15, 2016 refusal letter reproduced in part in paragraph 9 of these reasons. Consistent with the notice of application, the respondent s oral and written arguments focused on the January 15, 2016 refusal letter.

10 10 [21] During oral argument, the applicant conceded that the notice of application references the January 15, 2016 refusal letter though submits the MPNP s January 21, necessarily flows from it. [22] The intent of a notice of application is to frame the issue for determination. It is the originating process. At no time was the notice of application amended or leave to amend sought. Because the notice of application identifies the January 15, 2016 refusal letter as the decision under review, it is reasonable to decide this application on that basis. Moreover, my ultimate conclusions would not change even if the MPNP s January 21, confirming the January 15, 2016 decision was the decision under review. [23] I return to the issue: is there even a decision to review? [24] The respondent argues that, in the facts of this case, no discretion was ever exercised by the MPNP, and as such no decision was ever made. More precisely, because no Settlement Plan Part 2 form establishing a connection to Manitoba was received by the MPNP (as opposed to an insufficient or deficient plan), there was no opportunity to exercise discretion at the time of intake and a conclusion of ineligible was effectively automatic. [25] The applicant argues that even if the Settlement Plan Part 2 form was not submitted, the conclusion of ineligibility communicated in the January 15, 2016 refusal letter and reasons for the conclusion amount to a decision.

11 11 [26] After reviewing the record, and absent specific authorities supporting the respondent s position on this issue, I am in agreement with the applicant. Even if the application of the 2008 policies mandated ineligibility at the time of intake, a conclusion in that regard was nonetheless required and communicated to the applicant. [27] A decision occurred. 2. If there was a decision, it was a policy decision and not reviewable. [28] The respondent submits that because the ineligibility decision resulted from applying the very program and policies it was authorized to create and implement, the decision cannot be reviewed. At the risk of repeating myself, there is no doubt that the 2008 policies permitted the issuance of letters of ineligibility at the pre-assessment stage where an application is too incomplete or does not meet core criteria of the MPNP. [29] To support its position, the respondent referred me to Amin v. Saskatchewan (Economy), 2017 SKQB 142, a decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen s Bench. There, the applicant s application to move to Canada under the Saskatchewan Immigrant Nominee Program (SINP) was rejected at the assessment stage for failing to provide all of the banking/financial information required by the SINP. The applicant alleged procedural unfairness by the SINP. As in Manitoba, the respondent in Amin was solely responsible for creating and implementing the SINP, rules, criteria, and decision-making process.

12 12 [30] As to the reviewability of the SINP s decision, the respondent drew my attention to the following passages in Amin: [12] As well, for the purposes of the within application it is important to note that all of these rules, categories, criteria and policies for SINP were purely a creation of the respondent Ministry. Thus there is an issue as to whether the impugned decisions are even the proper subject of a judicial review application.... [62] First, I examine the nature of the decision being made and the process followed in making it. It has been held that the closer a decision is to a judicial process decision, the more closely the decider is held to procedural fairness. As noted above, this was a discretionary decision involving implementation of government policy, a decision not generally reviewable in this process. As well, I have considered whether the decision made was individual in nature or broad, affecting a class or group of people. While it certainly pertained individually to this applicant, that can be said of many policy decisions. At its heart, it is a broad policy decision. All applicants under this facet of SINP had to prove their financial viability by demonstrating stable funds on deposit for a period of time. The applicant was not singled out. This was a very standard requirement within this application process, one that should not have proven onerous on her to meet. In fact, she acknowledged this in her correspondence of August 12, 2014 when she admitted she could have easily avoided the aforementioned mistakes by paying attention to the numeric number of the account on the statement. [Emphasis added.] [31] Based on these statements, the respondent asks me to find the MPNP decision cannot be reviewed. [32] Despite its misgivings that a policy decision is reviewable, the Saskatchewan Court of Queen s Bench chose not to dismiss the application on that basis, choosing instead to dismiss it after conducting a procedural fairness analysis.

13 13 [33] Similarly, absent some additional binding authority on this point, I decline to determine the current application on the basis that the decision is not reviewable. 3. If there was a reviewable decision, there was no breach of procedural fairness. a. Duty of Procedural Fairness and Threshold [34] The applicant alleges it was procedurally unfair for the MPNP not to issue a fairness letter prior to declaring the application ineligible and to penalize her for Mr. Gill s harmless mistake. [35] Assuming the decision is reviewable (I have ruled that it is), the respondent seems to accept that the decision at issue is administrative, affects the rights, privileges or interests of the applicant, and, therefore, gives rise to a duty of fairness. However, in contrast to the applicant, the respondent submits the procedural fairness threshold in this case is a low one and was met by the MPNP. [36] The applicant and respondent agree that the concept of procedural fairness is variable and its content/the threshold is to be determined in the context of each case. They also agree that I should determine the procedural fairness threshold by applying the following, non-exhaustive, list of factors: The nature of the decision being made and the process followed in making it For example, the more the process provided for, the function of the tribunal, the nature of the decision-making body, and the determinations that must be made to reach a decision resemble judicial decision making, the more likely it is

14 14 that procedural protections closer to the trial model will be required by the duty of fairness. The nature of the statutory scheme and the terms of the statute pursuant to which the body operates The importance of the decision to the individual affected The legitimate expectations of the person challenging the decision For example, the law takes into account any promises by, or regular practices of, administrative decision makers as it would be unfair for them to act contrary to such promises and practices. The choices of procedure made by the agency itself, particularly when the statute leaves to the decision maker the ability to set procedures, or when the agency has an expertise in determining what procedures are appropriate in the circumstances See Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817 at paras [37] I make one factual observation before considering these factors. [38] The procedural fairness letter on which the applicant relies was introduced in the 2015 policies. It replaced the refusal letter in the 2008 policies (the policies that governed the applicant s application). Based on my review, I do not interpret

15 15 the introduction of the fairness letter as a change in procedure material to the facts in this case. In this case, the relevant time period is intake and pre-assessment. Neither the 2008 policies nor the 2015 policies require the issuance of a letter similar to a fairness letter or refusal letter at that preliminary stage. [39] As I see it, the applicant s real complaint is that a letter similar to the refusal letter or fairness letter, inviting the applicant to make a written submission, should have issued at the intake and pre-assessment stage as opposed to the first and second assessment stages. [40] Returning now to the procedural fairness Baker factors referenced in paragraph 36 of these reasons: (1) Nature of the Decision [41] Pursuant to the program, rules and decision-making process established by the respondent under the Immigration Agreement, the MPNP was not required to, and did not conduct itself in a formal, court-like manner (see paragraph 10 of these reasons). (2) Nature of the Statutory Scheme/Terms of the Statute pursuant to which the MPNP Operates [42] The scheme followed by the MPNP was as set out in the 2008 policies. There is no evidence that policies and procedures were not followed, nor does the applicant suggest that is the case. It is agreed that no right of appeal lies from

16 16 the MPNP s decisions. It is also agreed that a MPNP applicant who has been rejected at the pre-assessment stage (or later) has a right to reapply to the MPNP. In that sense, the closing of a file is not determinative. It is also relevant that the ultimate decision about permanent resident status rests with the federal government, not the respondent. [43] The entire scheme is discretionary in nature. The onus is on the applicant to persuade the respondent to exercise its discretion in her favour and issue a nomination certificate. (3) Importance of the Decision [44] Notwithstanding an applicant has the right to reapply to the MPNP and the decision of the respondent is not determinative, I accept that the pre-assessment eligibility decision is an important one to the applicant. While it may not carry the day, receiving a nomination certificate from the respondent is no doubt significant. (4) Legitimate Expectations [45] An objective read of the Immigration Agreement and policies made under them, confirm that the respondent has complete discretion to determine its own procedures and selection criteria to be used to nominate applicants. Again, it is clear that throughout the application process, the onus is on the applicant to establish he/she qualifies for nomination, and that there is no right to appeal an unfavourable decision. While the respondent provides some guidance regarding

17 17 the factors that it considers relevant, there is no list of criteria, which, if met, guarantee an applicant will be nominated. [46] There is no evidence of any promises or practices on the part of the MPNP to give rise to a reasonable expectation that a file closed at the intake and pre-assessment stage because of deficient documents will be reopened. (5) Decision Maker s Choice of Procedure [47] The respondent has the discretion to choose the policies and procedures it will follow. As appears from the federal legislation and Immigration Agreement, this was the intent behind the system established by Canada and Manitoba. [48] After considering the factors in paragraphs 41 to 46 of these reasons, what is the threshold of procedural fairness applicable in the context of this application? [49] I unreservedly accept that the decision in question is important to the applicant. However, I must weigh that factor along with all the others. When I do, I agree with the respondent that the procedural fairness threshold in this particular case is on the low end of the spectrum. b. Standard of Review for Procedural Fairness [50] To answer the procedural fairness question, I must first identify the standard of review to apply.

18 18 [51] The parties agree that in the years since Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, the standard of review when dealing with procedural fairness has been correctness. [52] Notwithstanding this general rule, the respondent invites me to adopt a different standard. A hybrid standard. [53] The respondent relies on the Amin decision and, in particular, the following statements from the Saskatchewan Court of Queen s Bench: [41] So, given that this is the somewhat uncertain and even treacherous legal landscape, where does this lowly trial judge step? In the case at bar I am of the view that even if the correctness standard applies, significant deference is owed to the respondent s decision. In this regard I cite three sources of authority.... [46] While at least formally the standard of review is correctness, this is one of those decisions referenced in the above-cited authorities where significant deference is called for. This is my view whether a strict standard of correctness or that of reasonableness is used. I also note the parties have agreed, more or less, that reasonableness is an available standard for this court. While generally this decision of the respondent must be considered within the context of correctness it must be afforded deference, thus I am applying a hybrid standard of review. [47] The respondent needs to have afforded procedural fairness to the applicant. Failing to do that will not necessarily be rigidly categorized as incorrect or unreasonable, but simply wrong. What conclusion the merits of this case results in shall be explored, below. [54] In the absence of higher authorities and more extensive submissions on the point, I am not prepared to find that a standard other than correctness applies here. Moreover, correctness was the standard applied by our own Court of Appeal

19 19 in Jiang v. Manitoba (Minister of Labour and Immigration), 2014 MBCA 27, a case also decided in the context of the MPNP. c. The Answer Fairness of Process [55] Having identified the standard of review (see paragraph 54 of these reasons) and the threshold of the procedural fairness duty in this case (see paragraph 49 of these reasons), did the MPNP breach that duty by not issuing a fairness letter to the applicant or by taking advantage of Mr. Gill s mistake? (1) Procedural Fairness Letter [56] In respect of the procedural fairness letter allegation, I note: (a) Using the discretion afforded to it, the respondent established the MPNP, including the 2008 policies and subsequently the 2015 policies. (b) The policies contemplate a process comprised of an intake and pre-assessment stage followed by two assessment stages, with different officers assigned to the stages. The intake and preassessment stage specifically contemplates the culling out of applications that are too incomplete or do not meet the criteria of the MPNP. Where an application is culled, a letter such as the one sent to the applicant on January 15, 2016, is sent.

20 20 (c) The January 15, 2016 letter advises, among other things, that the applicant can reapply. (d) A subsequent application is treated as a fresh application. (e) It was the 2008 policies that applied to the applicant, not the 2015 policies. The 2008 policies provide for a refusal letter, not a procedural fairness letter. The latter is a creation of the 2015 policies. In any event, neither the refusal letter nor the procedural fairness letter applies to the intake and pre-assessment stage of the process. (f) A new application would be subject to the 2015 policies, including the procedural fairness letter. The applicant has not reapplied to the MPNP. (g) The 2008 policies applied to all applicants to the MPNP. There is no suggestion that the applicant in this case was singled out or treated differently. (h) There is no evidence that the MPNP conducted itself in a manner creating expectations that a procedural fairness letter would issue. [57] The absence of a fairness letter from the respondent did not amount to procedural unfairness.

21 21 (2) Trap for the Unwary [58] In respect of the allegation that the respondent took advantage of the applicant, the applicant submits Mr. Gill s reply to no-reply@gov.mb.ca rather than mpnpsupporter@gov.mb.ca was a harmless mistake that did not prejudice the MPNP. Moreover, by sending instructions from an address different from the one to which the response is to be directed, the MPNP created a trap for the unwary. In addition to points (a) and (g) in paragraph 56 of these reasons, I note: (a) The relevant procedures give MPNP applicants the choice to apply online or in person. The applicant chose online. (b) Likewise, Mr. Gill, the applicant s supporter, was given the choice to submit the Settlement Plan Part 2 form online or in person. Mr. Gill chose online. The instructions were clear and unambiguous. (c) Upon Mr. Gill transmitting his information to the wrong address, the MPNP s computer system immediately generated (within two minutes) a failed delivery notice. (d) Despite some evidence that one-and-a-half years later Mr. Gill was surprised to learn of the MPNP s rejection of the applicant s application, there is no evidence that the failed delivery notice was not received by Mr. Gill, or explaining why he did not see it.

22 22 (e) The onus of completing the application and submitting it in accordance with the respondent s policies and procedures rests with the applicant. (f) The Settlement Plan Part 2 is a necessary component of the MPNP as it establishes the applicant s connection to the province. The respondent argues its total absence from the application the MPNP received (as was the case here) is fatal. (g) There is no evidence supporting the suggestion that the MPNP created an expectation that it would receive correspondence sent to no-reply@gov.mb.ca. [59] In support of her trap for the unwary argument, the applicant relies on Aghaee v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1997] F.C.J. No. 910 (QL) (T.D.). The context of Aghaee is a self-represented litigant seeking a court order extending time within which to serve and file material in court proceedings. The applicant also relies on a number of cases involving pre-printed forms. See Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Farr (1993), 110 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 11 (Nfld. S.C. (T.D.)); Royal Bank of Canada v. Hale et al. (1961), 30 D.L.R. (2d) 138 (B.C.S.C.); Curtis v. Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co., [1951] 1 K.B. 805; Delaney v. Cascade River Holidays Ltd. (1983), 44 B.C.L.R. 24 (C.A.); Neuchatel Asphalte Co. Ltd. v. Barnett, [1957] 1 W.L.R. 356 (C.A.); Tilden Rent-A-Car Co. v. Clendenning (1978), 18 O.R. (2d) 601 (C.A.).

23 23 [60] In my opinion, the facts in each of the cases referred to in paragraph 59 of these reasons are materially different from the facts in this case. The applicant chose the manner in which she submitted her application to and communicated with the respondent as did Mr. Gill. On the evidence before me, I cannot conclude the applicant was in any way trapped by the MPNP s procedures or unwary. [61] In all of the circumstances, applying the correctness standard, I find the MPNP did not breach its duty of procedural fairness to the applicant. 4. If there was a reviewable decision, the decision itself was reasonable. a. Standard of Review for the Decision [62] The applicant and respondent submit that the applicable standard is reasonableness. They rely on Dunsmuir and Jiang v. Manitoba (Minister of Labour and Immigration), 2013 MBQB 107 at para. 37. I agree. [63] In Dunsmuir, the Supreme Court of Canada described the reasonableness standard as follows: [47] Reasonableness is a deferential standard animated by the principle that underlies the development of the two previous standards of reasonableness: certain questions that come before administrative tribunals do not lend themselves to one specific, particular result. Instead, they may give rise to a number of possible, reasonable conclusions. Tribunals have a margin of appreciation within the range of acceptable and rational solutions. A court conducting a review for reasonableness inquires into the qualities that make a decision reasonable, referring both to the process of articulating the reasons and to outcomes. In judicial review, reasonableness is concerned mostly with the existence of justification, transparency and intelligibility within the decision-making process. But it is also concerned with whether the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law.

24 24 b. The Answer Reasonableness of Decision [64] Does the MPNP s determination of ineligibility and refusal to reopen the applicant s application fall within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law? I note: (a) In its discretion, the MPNP established its procedures in respect of pre-assessment at intake, first assessment, second assessment, and all time periods related to the submission of documents. (b) The policies and procedures are clear. (c) It is the applicant s responsibility to provide all documents within the time periods prescribed by the MPNP and to support the application with the required content. (d) The MPNP did not receive the Settlement Plan Part 2 form within the prescribed time period or at any time before pre-assessment. Establishing a connection to Manitoba is critical to the MPNP. (e) There is no evidence suggesting that Mr. Gill did not receive the bounce-back message advising of a failed delivery. There is no evidence suggesting that the MPNP was aware the Settlement Plan Part 2 form was sent. (f) This is a situation of no documentation as opposed to insufficient documentation.

25 25 (g) The decision taken is consistent with the 2008 policies as was the provision of the January 15, 2016 letter advising that the application was closed on account of ineligibility. [65] In all of the circumstances, and applying a reasonableness standard, I find that the MPNP s determination of ineligibility and refusal to reopen the applicant s application falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law. [66] I would reach the same conclusion were I to apply a correctness standard. IV. CONCLUSION [67] This application is dismissed. [68] Costs may be spoken to if counsel cannot agree. J.

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

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

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF MANITOBA

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF MANITOBA Origin: Appeal from a decision of the Master of the Court of Queen's Bench, dated June 5, 2013 Date: 20131213 Docket: CI 13-01-81367 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Jewish Community Campus of Winnipeg Inc.

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

Case Name: Rocha v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Case Name: Rocha v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Case Name: Rocha v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Between Andro Rocha, Applicant, and The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Respondent [2015] F.C.J. No. 1087 2015 FC 1070 Docket:

More information

Saskatchewan Immigrant Nominee Program (SINP) SINP Procedural Guidelines

Saskatchewan Immigrant Nominee Program (SINP) SINP Procedural Guidelines Saskatchewan Immigrant Nominee Program (SINP) SINP Procedural Guidelines Table of Contents Program Objectives & Overview... 2 Organizational Structure... 2 Procedural Guidelines... 3 I. Intake... 3 II.

More information

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA Date: 20180919 Docket: CI 18-01-15026 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: 6165347 Manitoba Inc. et al. v. The City of Winnipeg et al. Cited as: 2018 MBQB 153 B E T W E E N: COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA

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

MIN JUNG KIM JI HOON KIM. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT

MIN JUNG KIM JI HOON KIM. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT Federal Court Cour fédérale Date: 20100630 Docket: IMM-5625-09 Citation: 2010 FC 720 Vancouver, British Columbia, June 30, 2010 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes BETWEEN: MIN JUNG KIM JI HOON

More information

ALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER F December 10, 2018 EDMONTON POLICE COMMISSION. Case File Number

ALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER F December 10, 2018 EDMONTON POLICE COMMISSION. Case File Number ALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER F2018-74 December 10, 2018 EDMONTON POLICE COMMISSION Case File Number 001251 Office URL: www.oipc.ab.ca Summary: The Applicant made a request

More information

Introductory Guide to Civil Litigation in Ontario

Introductory Guide to Civil Litigation in Ontario Introductory Guide to Civil Litigation in Ontario Table of Contents INTRODUCTION This guide contains an overview of the Canadian legal system and court structure as well as key procedural and substantive

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

AKROS & Partners International Residence and Citizenship Planning Inc Yonge St., Suite #1600 Toronto, ON, M4P 1E4, Canada Telephone:

AKROS & Partners International Residence and Citizenship Planning Inc Yonge St., Suite #1600 Toronto, ON, M4P 1E4, Canada Telephone: 1 MANITOBA / CANADA PROVINCIAL NOMINEE PROGRAM BUSINESS STREAM Looking for a steadily top-rated country ranked among the best in the world in terms of quality of life, education, civil liberties, government

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

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA Date: 20181121 Docket: CI 16-01-04438 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Shirritt-Beaumont v. Frontier School Division Cited as: 2018 MBQB 177 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA BETWEEN: ) APPEARANCES: ) RAYMOND

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

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA Date: 20180530 Docket: CI 17-01-07364 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Kalo v. Winnipeg (City of) on behalf of Winnipeg Police Service Cited as: 2018 MBQB 68 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA B E T W E E

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

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO 1 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Shaw v. Phipps, 2012 ONCA 155 DATE: 20120313 DOCKET: C53665 Goudge, Armstrong and Lang JJ.A. BETWEEN Michael Shaw and Chief William Blair Appellants and Ronald Phipps

More information

SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND

SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Page: 1 SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: IRAC v. Privacy Commissioner & D.B.S. 2012 PESC 25 Date: 20120831 Docket: S1-GS-23775 Registry: Charlottetown Between: Island Regulatory and Appeal

More information

PRACTICE DIRECTIVES FOR CONTESTED APPLICATIONS IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF MANITOBA

PRACTICE DIRECTIVES FOR CONTESTED APPLICATIONS IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF MANITOBA PRACTICE DIRECTIVES FOR CONTESTED APPLICATIONS IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF MANITOBA November 4, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREAMBLE TO PRACTICE DIRECTIVES FOR CONTESTED APPLICATIONS IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT

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

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

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

EMIR SONMEZ. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION JUDGMENT AND REASONS

EMIR SONMEZ. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION JUDGMENT AND REASONS Date: 20150116 Docket: IMM-5781-13 Citation: 2015 FC 56 Ottawa, Ontario, January 16, 2015 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Boswell BETWEEN: EMIR SONMEZ Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND

More information

British Columbia's Tobacco Litigation and the Rule of Law

British Columbia's Tobacco Litigation and the Rule of Law The Peter A. Allard School of Law Allard Research Commons Faculty Publications (Emeriti) 2004 British Columbia's Tobacco Litigation and the Rule of Law Robin Elliot Allard School of Law at the University

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

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA Date: November 29, 2018 Docket: CI 10-01-68799 (Winnipeg Centre Indexed as: Biomedical Commercialization Canada Inc. v. Health Media Inc.; Health Media Network Inc. v. Biomedical Commercialization Canada

More information

Chapter 19 Economy Nominating Qualified Immigration Applicants 1.0 MAIN POINTS

Chapter 19 Economy Nominating Qualified Immigration Applicants 1.0 MAIN POINTS Economy Nominating Qualified Immigration Applicants 1.0 MAIN POINTS The Ministry of the Economy (Ministry) facilitates immigration. It uses the Saskatchewan Immigrant Nominee Program (Program) to recommend

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Citation: Dorn v Association of Professional Engineers Date: 20180305 and Geoscientists of the Province of Manitoba, Docket: AI17-30-08819 2018 MBCA 18 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Mr. Justice

More information

INFORMATION BULLETIN

INFORMATION BULLETIN INFORMATION BULLETIN #25 REVIEW OF ARBITRATIONS - TRANSITIONAL I. INTRODUCTION Most collective agreements provide for grievance arbitration as the method for resolving disputes over the meaning or application

More information

and REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

and REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER Citation: New Brunswick (Financial and Consumer Services Commission) v. Stratus Financial Group International, 2015 NBFCST 2 PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK FINANCIAL AND CONSUMER SERVICES TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER

More information

LEYLA SMIRNOVA. and SKATE CANADA JURISDICTIONAL ORDER. Richard W. Pound, Q.C. Jurisdictional Arbitrator

LEYLA SMIRNOVA. and SKATE CANADA JURISDICTIONAL ORDER. Richard W. Pound, Q.C. Jurisdictional Arbitrator SDRCC 16 0291 LEYLA SMIRNOVA (Claimant) and SKATE CANADA (Respondent) JURISDICTIONAL ORDER Richard W. Pound, Q.C. Jurisdictional Arbitrator Appearances: Laura Robinson for the Claimant Daphne Fedoruk,

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

Request for Ruling from the Canadian Environmental Law Association and Greenpeace

Request for Ruling from the Canadian Environmental Law Association and Greenpeace CMD 18-H6.157 File / dossier: 6.01.07 Date: 2018-06-25 Edocs: 5570467 Request for Ruling from the Canadian Environmental Law Association and Greenpeace Demande de décision de l Association canadienne du

More information

THE QUEEN'S BENCH WINNIPEG CENTRE. APPLICATION UNDER Queens Bench Rule 14.05(2)(c)(iv) WESTERN CANADA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE, - and -

THE QUEEN'S BENCH WINNIPEG CENTRE. APPLICATION UNDER Queens Bench Rule 14.05(2)(c)(iv) WESTERN CANADA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE, - and - File No. CI 11-01-72733 THE QUEEN'S BENCH WINNIPEG CENTRE APPLICATION UNDER Queens Bench Rule 14.05(2)(c)(iv) BETWEEN: WESTERN CANADA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE, Applicant, - and - THE GOVERNMENT OF MANITOBA,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Bresson v.nova Scotia (Community Services), 2016 NSSC 64. v. Nova Scotia (Department of Community Service)

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Bresson v.nova Scotia (Community Services), 2016 NSSC 64. v. Nova Scotia (Department of Community Service) SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Bresson v.nova Scotia (Community Services), 2016 NSSC 64 Date: 20160118 Docket: SYD No. 443281 Registry: Sydney Between: Jainey Lee Bresson v. Nova Scotia (Department

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO) B E T W E E N: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Court File No. (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO) NISHNAWBE-ASKI NATION and GINOOGAMING FIRST NATION, LONG LAKE 58 FIRST NATION, and TRANSCANADA

More information

Early Dispute Resolution in Family Law Disputes. June 2017

Early Dispute Resolution in Family Law Disputes. June 2017 Early Dispute Resolution in Family Law Disputes June 2017 1. Introduction In 2014 the Ministry of Justice undertook the Justice Innovation Agenda to take a critical look at the justice system to find ways

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

because she had returned from maternity leave and parental leave, the employer had

because she had returned from maternity leave and parental leave, the employer had MANITOBA HUMAN RIGHTS BOARD OF ADJUDICATION IN THE MATTER OF a complaint made under The Human Rights Code, CCSM c. H175 BETWEEN MHRC File No.: 17 LP 12 AND AND Robin Rankin, complainant, Government of

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Citation: Stadler v Director, St Boniface/ Date: 20181010 St Vital, 2018 MBCA 103 Docket: AI18-30-09081 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA B ETWEEN : K. A. Burwash for the Applicant A. J. Ladyka MARTIN

More information

Review of Administrative Decisions Involving Charter Rights: The Shortcomings of the SCC Decision in Doré

Review of Administrative Decisions Involving Charter Rights: The Shortcomings of the SCC Decision in Doré Review of Administrative Decisions Involving Charter Rights: The Shortcomings of the SCC Decision in Doré February 24, 2014, OTTAWA Distinct But Overlapping: Administrative Law and the Charter Over 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

Larry Nicholas Estabrooks, Director of Consumer Affairs,

Larry Nicholas Estabrooks, Director of Consumer Affairs, Citation : Estabrooks v. New Brunswick (Director of Consumer Affairs), 2016 NBFCST 11 PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK FINANCIAL AND CONSUMER SERVICES TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS ACT, S.N.B.

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: Gorenshtein v. British Columbia (Employment Standards Tribunal), 2013 BCSC 1499 Date: 20130819 Docket: S130604 Registry: Vancouver Tatiana Gorenshtein

More information

Order F14-44 WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL. Elizabeth Barker, Adjudicator. October 3, 2014

Order F14-44 WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL. Elizabeth Barker, Adjudicator. October 3, 2014 Order F14-44 WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL Elizabeth Barker, Adjudicator October 3, 2014 Quicklaw Cite: [2014] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 47 CanLII Cite: 2014 BCIPC 47 Summary: The applicant, on behalf of

More information

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA Date: 20180914 Docket: CI 13-01-85087 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Paterson et al. v. Walker et al. Cited as: 2018 MBQB 150 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA B E T W E E N: SHARRON PATERSON AND ) RUSSELL

More information

The Labour Relations Board Saskatchewan. MARVIN TAYLOR, Applicant and REGINA POLICE ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent

The Labour Relations Board Saskatchewan. MARVIN TAYLOR, Applicant and REGINA POLICE ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent The Labour Relations Board Saskatchewan MARVIN TAYLOR, Applicant and REGINA POLICE ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent LRB File No. 016-03; June 25, 2003 Chairperson, Gwen Gray, Q.C.; Members: Gloria Cymbalisty

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

The Canadian Institute ADVANCED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & PRACTICE May 1 and 2, 2008

The Canadian Institute ADVANCED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & PRACTICE May 1 and 2, 2008 The Canadian Institute ADVANCED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & PRACTICE May 1 and 2, 2008 MANAGING YOUR MULTIPLE ROLES AS TRIBUNAL COUNSEL By Gilbert Van Nes, General Counsel & Settlement Officer Alberta Environmental

More information

Canadian Immigration & Investment Consulting Corporation

Canadian Immigration & Investment Consulting Corporation Canadian Immigration & Investment Consulting Corporation How to Immigrate to Canada as a Business Investor or Start Up Visa for New Business First Canadian Place 100 King Street W., Suite 5700 Toronto,

More information

Rules for the Permanent Appeal Committee for The Liberal Party of Canada

Rules for the Permanent Appeal Committee for The Liberal Party of Canada Rules for the Permanent Appeal Committee for The Liberal Party of Canada 1. Definitions In the rules, appeal means any request to review any matter or decision made during the process of selection of candidates

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

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA Summary conviction appeal from a Judicial Justice of the Peace and Provincial Court Judge Date: 20181031 Docket: CR 17-01-36275 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: R. v. Grant Cited as: 2018 MBQB 171 COURT OF

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

Krishan Kumar. The Law Society of Saskatchewan

Krishan Kumar. The Law Society of Saskatchewan Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan Docket: CACV2464 Citation: Kumar v The Law Society of Saskatchewan, 2015 SKCA 132 Date: 2015-11-18 Between: Krishan Kumar And Appellant The Law Society of Saskatchewan

More information

The Supreme Court of Canada and Hate Publications: Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. Whatcott

The Supreme Court of Canada and Hate Publications: Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. Whatcott The Supreme Court of Canada and Hate Publications: Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. Whatcott Tom Irvine Ministry of Justice, Constitutional Law Branch Human Rights Code Amendments May 5, 2014 Saskatoon

More information

The Non-Discrimination Standards for Government and the Public Sector. Guidelines on how to apply the standards and who is covered

The Non-Discrimination Standards for Government and the Public Sector. Guidelines on how to apply the standards and who is covered The Non-Discrimination Standards for Government and the Public Sector Guidelines on how to apply the standards and who is covered March 2002 Table Of Contents INTRODUCTION... 4 WHAT IS THE AIM OF THESE

More information

Office of the Auditor General

Office of the Auditor General Office of the Auditor General Our Vision A relevant, valued, and independent audit office serving the public interest as the Legislature s primary source of assurance on government performance. Our Mission

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

THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES HUMAN RIGHTS ADJUDICATION PANEL. IN THE MATTER OF the NWT Human Rights Act, S.N.W.T., 2002, c.

THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES HUMAN RIGHTS ADJUDICATION PANEL. IN THE MATTER OF the NWT Human Rights Act, S.N.W.T., 2002, c. THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES HUMAN RIGHTS ADJUDICATION PANEL IN THE MATTER OF the NWT Human Rights Act, S.N.W.T., 2002, c. 18 as amended AND IN THE MATTER OF a complaint BETWEEN: ELIZABETH PORTMAN Appellant

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

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 Court of Appeal of Alberta

In the Court of Appeal of Alberta In the Court of Appeal of Alberta Citation: Edmonton (Police Service) v Alberta (Law Enforcement Review Board), 2014 ABCA 267 Between: Chief of Police of the Edmonton Police Service - and - Law Enforcement

More information

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

PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Citation: Maritime Electric v. Burns & ors. Date: 20040304 2004 PESCTD 19 Docket:S-1-GS-19049 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Between: And:

More information

Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia Page 2 [1] In this action the plaintiff sought, inter alia, declarations of Aboriginal title to land in a part

Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia Page 2 [1] In this action the plaintiff sought, inter alia, declarations of Aboriginal title to land in a part IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia, 2008 BCSC 600 Date: 20080514 Docket: 90-0913 Registry: Victoria Roger William, on his own behalf and

More information

ADMINISTRATIVE FAIRNESS GUIDEBOOK

ADMINISTRATIVE FAIRNESS GUIDEBOOK ADMINISTRATIVE FAIRNESS GUIDEBOOK Introduction This guidebook has been created to help you learn how the Alberta Ombudsman investigates complaints of unfair treatment by Alberta government departments,

More information

PART 6: RESOLVING ISSUES AND PRESERVING RIGHTS

PART 6: RESOLVING ISSUES AND PRESERVING RIGHTS PART 6: RESOLVING ISSUES AND PRESERVING RIGHTS What this Part is about: This Part is designed to resolve issues and questions arising in the course of a Court action. It includes rules describing how applications

More information

REPORT UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT CASE CITY OF WINNIPEG ACCESS COMPLAINT: REFUSAL OF ACCESS

REPORT UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT CASE CITY OF WINNIPEG ACCESS COMPLAINT: REFUSAL OF ACCESS REPORT UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT CASE 2017-0209 CITY OF WINNIPEG ACCESS COMPLAINT: REFUSAL OF ACCESS PROVISION CONSIDERED: 23(1)(a) REPORT ISSUED ON SEPTEMBER 28, 2017

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

Northwest Territories Nominee Program Business Stream. Application Guidelines

Northwest Territories Nominee Program Business Stream. Application Guidelines Northwest Territories Nominee Program Business Stream Application Guidelines Table of Contents Effective August 29 th, 2018 1.0 Introduction... 1 2.0 Service Standards... 2 3.0 Purpose of the Nominee Program...

More information

Two years after Tercon: Has procurement law in Canada changed?

Two years after Tercon: Has procurement law in Canada changed? Two years after Tercon: Has procurement law in Canada changed? Sally Gomery Stephen Nattrass Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP May 22, 2012 Two years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its eagerly

More information

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA Date: 20180110 Docket: PR 16-01-03410 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: McGregor et al. v. Krall Cited as: 2018 MBQB 7 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA BETWEEN: SARAH JEAN McGREGOR, CHRISTINE NOEL TAYLOR,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Bridgewater (Town) v. South Shore Regional School Board, 2017 NSSC 25. v. South Shore Regional School Board

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Bridgewater (Town) v. South Shore Regional School Board, 2017 NSSC 25. v. South Shore Regional School Board SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Bridgewater (Town) v. South Shore Regional School Board, 2017 NSSC 25 Date: 20161220 Docket: Bwt No. 457414 Registry: Bridgewater Between: Town of Bridgewater v.

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

Manitoba Farm Strategic Recruitment Initiative. Application Kit

Manitoba Farm Strategic Recruitment Initiative. Application Kit Manitoba Farm Strategic Recruitment Initiative Application Kit The Farm Strategic Recruitment Initiative (FSRI) is a special rural economic initiative under the auspices of the Manitoba Provincial Nominee

More information

and THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT

and THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT Date: 20081106 Docket: IMM-2397-08 Citation: 2008 FC 1242 Toronto, Ontario, November 6, 2008 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes BETWEEN: JULIO ESCALONA PEREZ AND DENIS ALEXANDRA PEREZ DE ESCALONA

More information

LABOUR COURT RULES, 2017 ARRANGEMENT OF RULES PART I PRELIMINARY

LABOUR COURT RULES, 2017 ARRANGEMENT OF RULES PART I PRELIMINARY Statutory Instrument 150 of 2017 LABOUR COURT RULES, 2017 SI 150/2017, 8/2018. ARRANGEMENT OF RULES PART I PRELIMINARY Rule 1. Title. 2. Application. 3. Interpretation. 4. Computation of time and certain

More information

THE LAW OF CANADA IN RELATION TO UNDRIP

THE LAW OF CANADA IN RELATION TO UNDRIP THE LAW OF CANADA IN RELATION TO UNDRIP Although the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is not a binding legal instrument and has never been ratified as a treaty would be, the

More information

Chapter 12 Nominating Qualified Immigration Applicants 1.0 MAIN POINTS

Chapter 12 Nominating Qualified Immigration Applicants 1.0 MAIN POINTS Chapter 12 Chapter 12 Nominating Qualified Immigration Applicants 1.0 MAIN POINTS The Ministry of the Economy (Ministry) facilitates immigration by using the Saskatchewan Immigrant Nominee Program to recommend

More information

The Law Society of Saskatchewan

The Law Society of Saskatchewan The Law Society of Saskatchewan MAPA MUDIYANSELAGE MAHENDRA BANDARA MAPAGUNARATNE HEARING DATE: August 17, 2015 DECISION DATE: September 30, 2015 Law Society of Saskatchewan v. Mapagunaratne, 2015 SKLSS

More information

Case Name: Lorenzo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Case Name: Lorenzo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 1 sur 7 2016-01-28 16:34 Case Name: Lorenzo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Between Arthur Eisma, Lorenzo, Applicant, and The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Respondent [2016]

More information

Report to Parliament. Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act

Report to Parliament. Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act Report to Parliament Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act For information regarding reproduction rights, please contact Public Works and Government Services Canada at: 613-996-6886 or at: droitdauteur.copyright@tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca

More information

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 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

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS IN CANADA -AN OVERVIEW-

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS IN CANADA -AN OVERVIEW- ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS IN CANADA -AN OVERVIEW- CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN D. RICHARD FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL, CANADA Bangkok November 2007 INTRODUCTION In Canada, administrative tribunals are established by

More information

The Public Guardian and Trustee Act

The Public Guardian and Trustee Act 1 The Public Guardian and Trustee Act being Chapter P-36.3* of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1983 (effective April 1, 1984) as amended by the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1984-85-86, c.34 and 105; 1988-89,

More information

SERGEANT ANTONIO D'ANGELO. and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA AND ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE JUDGMENT AND REASONS

SERGEANT ANTONIO D'ANGELO. and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA AND ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE JUDGMENT AND REASONS Date: 20141124 Docket: T-871-14 Citation: 2014 FC 1120 Ottawa, Ontario, November 24, 2014 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes BETWEEN: SERGEANT ANTONIO D'ANGELO Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

More information

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Lymburner v. Nova Scotia (Health and Wellness) 2016 NSSC 23

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Lymburner v. Nova Scotia (Health and Wellness) 2016 NSSC 23 SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Lymburner v. Nova Scotia (Health and Wellness) 2016 NSSC 23 Date: 20160118 Docket: Hfx No. 435272 Registry: Halifax Between: Dr. Dana Lymburner v. Applicant Her Majesty

More information

Canada Industrial Relations Board: 10 Key Points

Canada Industrial Relations Board: 10 Key Points Canada Industrial Relations Board: 10 Key Points The Six-Minute Labour Lawyer 2010 The Law Society of Upper Canada Toronto, Ontario June 15, 2010 Graham J. Clarke Vice-Chairperson Canada Industrial Relations

More information

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT: REPLY TO RESPONSE OF THE MINISTER OF HEAL TH OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT: REPLY TO RESPONSE OF THE MINISTER OF HEAL TH OF BRITISH COLUMBIA PATENTED MEDICINE PRICES REVIEW BOARD IN THE MATTER OF the Patent Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-4, as amended AND IN THE MATTER OF Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc. (" Respondent" ) and the medicine " Soliris" WRITTEN

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

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Reed v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), 2017 NSSC 85

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Reed v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), 2017 NSSC 85 SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Reed v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), 2017 NSSC 85 Date: 2017-03-28 Docket: Hfx. No. 456782 Registry: Halifax Between: Warren Reed, Gerry Post, Ben Marson,

More information

The Informal Public Appeals Act

The Informal Public Appeals Act 1 INFORMAL PUBLIC APPEALS c. I-9.0001 The Informal Public Appeals Act being Chapter I-9.0001 of The Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2014 (effective January 1, 2015). NOTE: This consolidation is not official

More information

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA On appeal from the decision of the Registrar of the Court of Queen s Bench dated October 13, 2017 Date: 20180411 Docket: BK 16-01-04099 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Toyota Credit Canada Inc. v. MNP Ltd.

More information

R. Reis Pagtakhan. September 30, 2013 Aikins, MacAulay & Thorvaldson LLP

R. Reis Pagtakhan. September 30, 2013 Aikins, MacAulay & Thorvaldson LLP Using Immigration to Get Ahead of the Competition: How Canada s New Permanent Residency Programs Can Be Used By Your Company to Expand the Talent Pool R. Reis Pagtakhan September 30, 2013 Aikins, MacAulay

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

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CITATION: R. v. Punko, 2012 SCC 39 DATE: DOCKET: 34135, 34193

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CITATION: R. v. Punko, 2012 SCC 39 DATE: DOCKET: 34135, 34193 SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Punko, 2012 SCC 39 DATE: 20120720 DOCKET: 34135, 34193 BETWEEN: AND BETWEEN: John Virgil Punko Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Randall Richard Potts

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