Summary of the case: Court dismisses the request for review on the basis of the reasonableness standard because the applicant had not exhausted his right of appeal under the relevant legislation

0


The Court dismisses the request for review on the basis of the reasonableness standard because the applicant has not exhausted his right of appeal under the relevant legislation.

Administrative law – Rulings reviewed – Workers ‘compensation boards – Applications for judicial review – Appeals – Standard of review – Reasonableness – Compliance with legislation – Discretionary power – Workers’ compensation – Employee benefits

Smith v. Manitoba (Appeal Board), [2021] MJ No. 211, 2021 MBQB 149, Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba, June 25, 2021, H. Rempel J.

The plaintiff, Ms. Smith, was the victim of a horrific crime. Her doctors prescribed medical cannabis to treat her symptoms of PTSD under The Victims Bill of Rights, CCSM v. V55 (the “Act”). His request was rejected by the Compensation Director on his first request and then again following his request for reconsideration. She appealed to the Appeal Board, a specialized tribunal established under the Workers’ Compensation Act, CCSM v. W200. In its written decision, the Appeal Board dismissed his appeal, but provided him with written notice of his right to appeal the decision under section 67 of the Act, which states that an appeal must be taken to the Court of Queen’s Bench within 30 days. and that an appeal can only be made on a question of law or jurisdiction.

Despite the appeal requirements set out in the Act, Ms. Smith wanted to conduct a review of the Appeal Board’s decision on the reasonableness standard. She argued that her constitutional right to judicial review on a standard of reasonableness is not precluded by the statutory appeals scheme described in the Act and that the tribunal has concurrent jurisdiction to conduct judicial review “on the merits”. .

The request was rejected. The court noted that Ms Smith had chosen not to exercise her right of appeal under the statutory standard of review, which limited appeals to questions of law or jurisdiction only. The court ruled that Ms. Smith had no opportunity to avoid the statutory standard of appeal and instead require a review of the reasonableness standard. The court disagreed with Ms Smith’s argument that Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, confirmed that a reviewing court, empowered by a particular standard of appeal by statute, also has concurrent jurisdiction to conduct a reasonableness review of every decision delegated to administrative decision-makers. The court concluded that Ms Smith’s appeal was, in substance, related to a disagreement over a finding of fact made by the Commission, and that giving effect to Ms Smith’s arguments would nullify Parliament’s manifest intention to limit the appeals. to matters of law or jurisdiction provided by law.

The court ruled that it did not have the jurisdiction to conduct a reasonableness review and that even if it did, it would not exercise its discretion to do so since Ms Smith did not have exhausted his right of appeal under the Act.

This case was digested by JoAnne G. Barnum, and first published in the LexisNexis®


Share.

About Author

Leave A Reply