University of British Columbia v. College of Teachers (B.C.) et al., 2002 BCCA 310

• Judge: Southin, Huddart and Thackray, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: April 10, 2002
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2002 BCCA 310;(2002), 169 B.C.A.C. 44 (CA)

B.C. Univ. v. College of Teachers (2002), 169 B.C.A.C. 44 (CA);

    276 W.A.C. 44

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MY.042

University of British Columbia (respondent/petitioner) v. The British Columbia College of Teachers (appellant/respondent) and Simon Fraser University and University of Victoria (intervenors)

(CA028628; 2002 BCCA 310)

Indexed As: University of British Columbia v. College of Teachers (B.C.) et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Southin, Huddart and Thackray, JJ.A.

May 15, 2002.

Summary:

The Council of the B.C. College of Teachers denied approval to UBC's revised teacher education program unless certain conditions were met. UBC argued that the conditions were ultra vires the College and petitioned for an order quashing the deci­sions, an order declaring that the College lacked jurisdiction to interfere with or fetter the decisions of UBC by imposing condi­tions upon the university, and an order of mandamus directing the Council of the College to approve its program.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2001] B.C.T.C. 792, allowed UBC's petition. The College of Teachers appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the order and dismissed the petition.

Courts - Topic 2022

Jurisdiction - Conditions precedent - Requirement of justiciable issue - The B.C. College of Teachers denied approval of UBC's revised teacher education pro­gram unless certain conditions were met - At issue between the College and UBC was who had the right to determine the curricu­lum and methods of delivering that cur­riculum to the future teachers in B.C. - Both bodies were statutory creatures - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the parties' differences were not justiciable - See paragraphs 8 to 9, 42.

Education - Topic 4126

Universities - Courses or programs - Approval of - Judicial review - UBC offered a Bachelor's degree in Education, while the College of Teachers had the power to grant teaching certificates - Both were statutory bodies - The College denied approval of UBC's revised teacher educa­tion program unless certain condi­tions were met - The British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that both the uni­versity and the College could exercise its statutory mandate as it saw fit - The Col­lege was not required to exercise its powers of approval in any particular way - The court could not require the College to approve a proposed teacher education program with­out such conditions as it might see fit - See paragraphs 8 to 9, 30 to 39, 41 to 52.

Education - Topic 6043.1

Teachers (incl. principals and non-teaching professional employees) - Qualifications - Certification - Authority re teacher edu­ca­tion programs - [See Education - Topic 4126 ].

Cases Noticed:

Trinity Western University et al. v. Col­lege of Teachers (B.C.) et al., [2001] 1 S.C.R. 772; 269 N.R. 1; 151 B.C.A.C. 161; 249 W.A.C. 161, affing. (1998), 116 B.C.A.C. 1; 190 W.A.C. 1; 59 B.C.L.R.(3d) 241 (C.A.), affing. [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. D46; 41 B.C.L.R.(3d) 158 (S.C.), consd. [para. 45].

British Columbia Telephone Co. v. Shaw Cable Systems (B.C.) Ltd., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 739; 183 N.R. 184, refd to. [para. 50].

Statutes Noticed:

Teaching Profession Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 449, sect. 4, sect. 21(b), sect. 21(c), sect. 21(d), sect. 21(i), sect. 23(1) [para. 28].

University Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 468, sect. 1, sect. 2, sect. 27(1), sect. 27(2)(i), sect. 27(2)(j), sect. 37(1)(c), sect. 37(1)(f), sect. 37(1)(h), sect. 37(1)(k), sect. 40, sect. 48 [para. 29].

Counsel:

Gary A. Nelson, for the appellant;

Donald Jordan, Q.C., for the respondent;

Rhys Davies, Q.C., for the intervenors.

This appeal was heard before Southin, Huddart and Thackray, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, at Vancouver, British Columbia, on April 10, 2002. The decision of the court was delivered on May 15, 2002, when the following opinions were filed:

Southin, J.A. (Thackray, J.A., concur­ring) - see paragraphs 1 to 40;

Huddart, J.A. - see paragraphs 41 to 52.