eLaw - Litigation Update│ June 2016 - No. 75
 
 
                                         
                                     
                                     

 

The Law Society of Manitoba
Professional Education and Competence

 
 

     
 

       eLaw Litigation                                                                                    June 2016

In This Issue
SCC Divided on Standard of Review
Credibility Issues Are for Trial: MBCA
Administrative Decisions and Fundamental Values: MBCA
Civil Suit Not an Available Remedy for Academic Dispute: MBQB
Other QB Decisions
Queen’s Bench Notice
Recommended Reading
The Law Society wants to hear from you!
Summer CPD Replays: LSM
Upcoming Programs: MBA

 
     
 

SCC Divided on Standard of Review

Those hoping for clarity on the issue of judicial review of administrative decision-making have expressed their disappointment with the recent Supreme Court ruling in Commission scolaire de Laval v. Syndicat de l’enseignement de la région de Laval, 2016 SCC 8. The court unanimously upheld an arbitrator’s decision allowing a union grieving the dismissal of a teacher to examine school board members who made the in camera decision concerning the reasons for the dismissal, but split 4/3 on the standard of review. Overruling both lower courts, the majority found at para. 30 that the standard applicable to the arbitrator’s interlocutory decision was reasonableness, and that arbitrators have exclusive jurisdiction over evidentiary issues such as whether to allow examination of members of the board’s executive committee. The minority disagreed, finding that the issues at stake here (deliberative secrecy and immunity from disclosure) were questions of general law and beyond the expertise of the arbitrator, necessitating a correctness standard. For commentary on the judicial review issue see:

Standard of review of administrative action: coherence post-Dunsmuir?
– Canadian Appeals Monitor

Categorical Disagreement – Administrative Law Matters

Judicial Review and Grievance Arbitration – Undue Delay for No Good Reason – Canlii Connects
 
 

Credibility Issues Are for Trial: MBCA

The appeal court overturned a summary judgment order dismissing a claim against the city for negligent misrepresentation concerning the RRAP program in Lenko v The Government of Manitoba et al, 2016 MBCA 52, finding that the motion judge erred in concluding that the City had met its burden of proof concerning a key issue and in not applying the correct test for summary judgment in Manitoba. At paras. 70-71 the court stresses that the Hryniak decision did not change the test for summary judgment and that Manitoba courts are more constrained in applying Hryniak than Ontario courts, since Ontario has substantially amended its summary judgment rules to expand the role of the court in resolving claims without a trial. In this case, while the motion judge was required to take a “hard look” at the evidence to ensure that what appeared to be a credibility issue was, in fact, a genuine issue and not merely a simple denial by the responding party, once that threshold was met, it was not for the motion judge to go on to resolve the credibility issues. (para. 75)

 
 

Administrative Decisions and Fundamental Values: MBCA

In Stadler v Director, St Boniface, 2016 MBCA 37, the court granted leave to appeal a decision of the Social Services Appeal Board that it had no power to consider the Charter issues raised by the suspension of the applicant’s income assistance for refusing to apply for Canada Pension Plan benefits at age 60. The applicant’s argument (that it was age and disability discrimination to force him to apply at age 60 rather than wait to receive a higher monthly benefit at age 65) raises an arguable case of substance, said the court, especially in light of recent refinements in the law with respect to the test for jurisdiction to grant Charter remedies in the administrative context.

 
 

Civil Suit Not an Available Remedy for Academic Dispute: MBQB

In Al-Bakkal v. de Vries et al, 2016 MBQB 45, the court granted the university’s summary judgment motion to dismiss a former dental student’s claim for damages arising from her delayed graduation (caused by the grade appeal process which took a year to complete). The court found there was no triable issue given the academic essence of the case and the required deference to the university’s appeal mechanism, and noted at para. 95 that:

where a dispute is about the grading, advancement, graduation or academic designation of a student or where the dispute focusses on the academic requirements, rules and/or regulations that the university or faculty applies to a student, a civil suit for damages is not an available remedy.

 
 

Other QB Decisions

Brooks Equipment Ltd. et al. v. La Salle Credit Union Ltd. et al., 2016 MBQB 98 – the court considers the issue of privilege and schedule B documents, and, in particular, in what circumstances prejudice or unfairness to a party outweighs the protection of solicitor-client privilege.

Langevin v. The Great-West Life Assurance Company
, 2016 MBQB 67 - the court rejected the plaintiff’s claim for compensation under his work group accidental death and dismemberment insurance policy for injuries to his hand sustained while operating a table saw. The court found that the injuries did not constitute a dismemberment and that the surgical reattachment provision of the AD&D policy only operates in the event of a covered loss.

 
 

Queen’s Bench Notice

The uncontested civil motions list will sit on Wednesdays and Fridays each week from July 4 to September 5, 2016, according to this court notice. Emergency matters must be dealt with as specified.

 
 

Recommended Reading

The Canadian Law of Judicial Review: A Plea for Doctrinal Coherence and Consistency – in this controversial paper, published February 2016, Federal Court of Appeal Judge David Stratas proposes solutions for the doctrinal incoherence and inconsistency plaguing the Canadian law of judicial review.

Carbon Copy Class Actions Stayed for Abuse of Process – this Osler blog post discusses Hafichuk-Walkin et al v BCE Inc et al, 2016 MBCA 32, the Manitoba Court of Appeal decision confirming the unconditional stay of a duplicative class action.

Courts send a message on texting – this Lawyers Weekly article considers how Canadian civil courts are dealing with the issues relating to the production of text messages

The $50 billion reversal – an international tax evasion/shareholder arbitration dispute highlights the importance of arbitral jurisdiction, according to the author of this Lawyers Weekly article.

 
 

The Law Society wants to hear from you!

Pursuant to its authority to govern the entities through which lawyers provide legal services, the Law Society has been working to develop a framework for regulation that will enhance its ability to protect the public interest. The Society is considering the adoption of a compliance based or outcomes focused model and would like your input. The consultation process is open until
June 30, 2016
.

Those who respond to the consultation questions before June 30th will be eligible for up to 1.5 CPD (EPPM) hours. Alternatively, to learn more about how these developments will affect you and your firm sign up for the FREE CPD online webinar, Innovating Regulation, on the Law Society cpdonline website. Webinar participants are eligible for 0.5 EPPM hours.

 
 

Summer CPD Replays: LSM

The CPD Replay schedule is now posted on the LSM website. If you missed attending one of these popular programs the first time around, replays are a cost effective way to catch up on your CPD hours during the slower paced summer months. Find a program and date that works for you, with a wide variety of programming topics offered from July 18 to August 10, 2016.

Don't see a time that fits your schedule? These DVDs are available for purchase and can be viewed at your own convenience.

 
 

Upcoming Programs: MBA

Judicially Assisted Dispute Resolution – What, When and Why – speakers at this joint MBA session will look at judicially assisted dispute resolution as it applies to civil, estate and family matters. The program takes place from noon to 1:30 pm on Jun. 17, 2016 at the Law Society classroom.

Small Claims Primer - speakers will highlight recent amendments to The Court of Queen’s Bench Small Claim Practices Act and QB Rule 76 and review the steps from preparing and filing a small claim to bringing the claim before a Small Claims Hearing Officer at this lunch program on June 23, 2016. This session is recommended for articling students who will be handling small claims and associates wanting a refresher.

 
 
 
 
ISSN 1916-3916
 
 
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
 
 
You are receiving this email in accordance with the Law Society's mandate to uphold and protect the public interest in the delivery of legal services with competence, integrity and independence and to further your opportunities to ensure compliance with the mandatory continuing professional development requirements set out in Law Society Rule 2.81.1(8).

 
 
 

www.lawsociety.mb.ca/publications/elaw
The Law Society of Manitoba
219 Kennedy St
Winnipeg MB R3C 1S8