2 total
Conflicting tribunal decisions do not independently justify judicial review.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal from a Quebec Court of Appeal decision that had granted evocation to overturn a workers' compensation tribunal ruling.
The CALP had interpreted s. 60 of the Act respecting Industrial Accidents and Occupational Diseases as requiring the employer to pay the injured worker 90% of his net wages for the first 14 days of disability regardless of a plant closure.
The Court held that this interpretation was not patently unreasonable and fell within the CALP's jurisdiction.
The Court further held that conflicting decisions between administrative tribunals do not constitute an independent basis for judicial review, as curial deference and decision-making autonomy must prevail over consistency objectives where decisions are not patently unreasonable.
Class action authorization appeal allowed; facts alleged justified the conclusions sought regarding agricultural land conveyances.
The appellant sought authorization to institute a class action on behalf of buyers who purchased lots from the respondent, arguing that the Act to preserve agricultural land prevented the respondent from conveying ownership.
The Superior Court dismissed the motion, finding the facts did not justify the conclusions sought, and the Court of Appeal affirmed.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, applying its concurrent decision in Venne v. Quebec, and held that the facts alleged did seem to justify the conclusions sought, referring the matter back to the Superior Court to assess the remaining criteria for a class action.
