Applications for Judicial Review - British Columbia
The following are decisions in applications for judicial review within British Columbia’s court.The applications have been categorized in two groups. Thsoe applications that have been granted and all other applications.
In British Columbia the court that hears applications for Judicial review is British Columbia’s Supreme Court.
Granted Applications for Judicial Review
Colwill v. Workers' Compensation Board - British Columbia - 2019
Application for Judicial Review - Certiorari made by injured worker GRANTED
Djakovic v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal) - British Columbia - 2010
Application for Judicial Review - Certiorari made by injured worker GRANTED
Cianelli v. Workers' Compensation Board of B.C. - British Columbia - 2007
Application for Judicial Review - Certiorari made by injured worker GRANTED
Granted and Denied Applications for Judicial Review
Colwill v. Workers' Compensation Board - British Columbia - 2019
Application for Judicial Review - Certiorari made by injured worker GRANTED
Bellia v Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal - British Columbia - 2018
Application for Judicial Review - Certiorari made by injured worker DENIED
Djakovic v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal) - British Columbia - 2010
Application for Judicial Review - Certiorari made by injured worker GRANTED
Cianelli v. Workers' Compensation Board of B.C. - British Columbia - 2007
Application for Judicial Review - Certiorari made by injured worker GRANTED
There are a lot more decisions to add to the above list. I hope to have them all added soon.
This will also include my commentary for each to make it easy for people to see relevant cases and issues pertaining to their case.
Cianelli v. Workers' Compensation Board of B.C.
Respondents:
Workers’ Compensation Board of B.C. and Workers’ Compensation appeal Tribunal
Intervenors:
Unfortunately, I have not had the opportunity to review this decision as yet. When I do I will place my comments here.
Click Here to Return to List of Cases
Djakovic v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal)
Respondents:
British Columbia Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal
Intervenors:
The injured worker requested the court judicially review three decisions of the BC WCAT.
The issues identified by the court for the application for judicial review were as follows:
a) WCAT 1 - did the Appeal Tribunal breach the petitioner’s right to procedural fairness by denying him a full and fair hearing, and in particular, by denying him the right to cross-examine certain witnesses?;
b) WCAT 2 - did the Appeal Tribunal commit a jurisdictional error by making unreasonable findings of fact?; and
c) WCAT 3 - did the decision-maker, in relying on a report that applied the wrong legal standard, commit an error of law?
Additionally, the injured worker raised the point that the WCAT held three separate hearings for the decisions, contrary to his request to combine them into one hearing. As such the injured worker argued that the WCAT in holding three hearings reasonable breached his “reasonable expectation of fair access to the appeal process without unnecessary litigation”.
At para 26 to 56 of the decision the court discussed whether the WCAT breached the injured worker’s right to procedural fairness, by denying him a full and fair hearing. That the injured worker was prevented from cross-examining a witness.
Ultimately, the court found that the WCAT did in fact deny the injured work their right to procedural fairness.
At para 57 to 68 of the decision the court discussed whether the WCAT had committed a jurisdictional error by making an unreasonable findings of fact.
Ultimately, the court found that the WCAT did commit jurisdictional errors that were unreasonable.
At para 69 to 87 of the decision the court discussed whether the WCAT had committed an error of law by applying the wrong legal standard.
Ultimately, the court found that the WCAT did commit an error of law by applying the wrong legal test.
At para 88 to 95 of the decision the court discussed whether the WCAT had committed an interfered with the right of procedural fairness by holding three separate WCAT hearings.
Ultimately, the court did not find that the WCAT infringed any right of procedural fairness.
Click Here to Return to List of Cases
Bellia v Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal
Respondents:
Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal
Intervenors:
Unfortunately, I have not had the opportunity to review this decision as yet. When I do, I will place my comments here.
I would initially comment that the judge at para 27 stated that the decision was not patently unreasonable. This greatly concerns me as this standard of review has not been used in Canada since 2008, when the Supreme Court of Canada in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, at paragraphs 34 to 37, folded the two review standards of “Patently Unreasonable” and “Unreasonable” into the one standard of review. That being just “Unreasonable”. This was further confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2019, with their decision of Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, at paragraph 7.
Click Here to Return to List of Cases
Colwill v. Workers' Compensation Boar
Respondents:
Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal
Intervenors:
Unfortunately, I have not had the opportunity to review this decision as yet.
When I do, I will place my comments here.
I would initially comment, that this case seems very interesting in that it is a judicial review of a workers compensation board policy. Normally it is a decision itself that gets judicially reviewed.
However, an injured worker, or any party to a matter, can challenge a law and/or a policy, section of law and/or policy, on the grounds the law and/or policy infringes human rights legislation and/or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Thanks to Pat for brining this case to my attention!
Click Here to Return to List of Cases