Kelly L. Buffett

In an administrative law appeal, the appellant municipality challenged a referral decision by a provincial human rights commission to appoint a board of inquiry regarding alleged discriminatory school-funding arrangements affecting a minority-language school community.

The Court held that referral decisions at this preliminary screening stage are reviewable on reasonableness, with strong judicial restraint against premature intervention in ongoing administrative processes.

The Court clarified that older jurisdictional framing tied to preliminary questions should no longer govern this context.

Applying the proper standard, the commission had a reasonable basis in law and on the evidence to refer the novel and complex complaints for inquiry.

The applicants sought statutory accident death benefits after the deceased was crushed by a truck flatbed while dismantling it for parts in a scrap yard.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under section 2(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator held a preliminary issue hearing to determine if the incident met the definition of an accident.

Applying the purpose and causation tests, the arbitrator found that dismantling a flatbed for parts is not an ordinary and well-known activity to which automobiles are put.

Furthermore, the deceased's actions with a torch and pry bar constituted an intervening act that broke the chain of causation.

The arbitrator concluded that the deceased was not fatally injured as a result of an accident and dismissed the claim for benefits.

The plaintiff suffered a broken leg after slipping on concrete slurry that had pooled on a municipal sidewalk.

The trial judge found the adjacent property owners liable for creating the slurry and the City liable for failing to keep the sidewalk in a reasonable state of repair, apportioning 20% liability to the City.

The City appealed, arguing the trial judge erred in finding the sidewalk was in a state of non-repair and in his causation analysis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding sufficient evidence supported the trial judge's conclusions that the sidewalk's reverse slope and improper grinding repairs constituted non-repair, and that these conditions were a contributing cause of the pooling slurry and the plaintiff's fall under the 'but for' test.

The appellant condominium corporation brought an application to remove the respondent's cats from her unit, after a previous identical application by the unit owner was dismissed and not appealed.

The application judge dismissed the second application as an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the appellant was an active participant in the first application and that permitting the second application would be manifestly unfair to the respondent by forcing her to relitigate the same issue.