Barron v. Warkentin et al., (2004) 372 A.R. 40 (QB)

• Judge: Martin, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: July 28, 2004
• Citations: (2004), 372 A.R. 40 (QB);2004 ABQB 603

Barron v. Warkentin (2004), 372 A.R. 40 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] A.R. TBEd. SE.010

Gus Barron (applicant) v. Frank Warkentin, Randy Milnes, Shirley Milnes, David Aftergood, Tom Shrake, Calgary Montrose Provincial Progressive Conservative Association, the Board of Directors of the Calgary Montrose Provincial Progressive Conservative Association and Dale Sailer (respondents)

(0401 08171; 2004 ABQB 603)

Indexed As: Barron v. Warkentin et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Martin, J.

July 30, 2004.

Summary:

Barron and the incumbent each sought nomination as the Progressive Conservative Party's candidate for the legislative assembly in the provincial riding of Calgary Montrose. The Nomination Committee disqualified Barron from running and declared the incumbent the party's candidate for the riding. Barron applied for judicial review.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application, quashed the Committee's decision and directed that the nomination process be allowed to continue for one further month, the amount of time left in the campaign when Barron was disqualified. The Committee could decide when the contest was to close and when a general meeting was to be held to elect a candidate.

Associations - Topic 404

Judicial review or statutory appeal - General - When available - Barron and the incumbent each sought nomination as the Progressive Conservative Party's candidate for the legislative assembly in a provincial riding in Alberta - The Nomination Committee disqualified Barron for alleged violations of the rules and responsibilities governing nominees and declared the incumbent the party's candidate - Barron sought judicial review - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that it had jurisdiction to review the Committee's decision - While the Committee was a voluntary or consensual organization, as opposed to a statutorily created tribunal, it had decision making authority with enormous public impact - Given the nature of the impugned decision, the court had to have the authority to review it, particularly in the absence of an impartial "disciplinary" tribunal to review such matters and resolve them in accordance with procedural fairness and the rules of natural justice - See paragraphs 40 to 53.

Elections - Topic 7022

Political parties - Internal management - Judicial review - [See Associations - Topic 404 ].

Elections - Topic 7025

Political parties - Internal management - Nomination of candidates - Barron and the incumbent each sought nomination as the Progressive Conservative Party's candidate for the legislative assembly in a provincial riding in Alberta - Barron and his supporters believed that the nomination committee had a desire to see that the incumbent was re-elected - A number of small, otherwise inconsequential, matters were taken as insults or attempts to thwart Barron's campaign - Barron and his campaign manager responded accordingly - That resulted in correspondence which contained language that the nomination committee found offensive - At a meeting to discuss the problem, Barron was advised of a letter from a constituent complaining that Barron had made racist remarks - Arrangements were made to ease tensions - Within two weeks, the committee disqualified Barron for failing to respect his opponent and conduct himself in such a way as to bring credit to himself and the Party - The committee declared the incumbent the candidate for the riding - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench quashed the decision - The complaints against Barron were trivial and not worthy of disqualification - It was fundamentally unfair to have a party to such a dispute empowered to disqualify the other party without the possibility of an effective review - The failures to notify Barron of the complaints before a hearing and to have a hearing by an impartial tribunal which would provide both sides an opportunity to be heard, raised serious questions of fairness - This was compounded by the committee's acceptance, without question or investigation, of the constituent's letter of complaint - See paragraphs 54 to 60.

Cases Noticed:

Kaplan v. Canadian Institute of Actuaries (1994), 161 A.R. 321; 25 Alta. L.R.(3d) 108 (Q.B.), affd. (1997), 206 A.R. 268; 156 W.A.C. 268; 161 D.L.R.(4th) 481 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1997), 227 N.R. 89; 219 A.R. 160; 179 W.A.C. 160 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 41].

Isley v. Northern Alberta Institute of Technology et al. (2004), 353 A.R. 99 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 41].

D'Cruz v. Field Hockey Ontario (1997), 55 O.T.C. 366 (Gen. Div.), dist. [para. 42].

Grewal v. Conservative Party of Canada, [2004] O.T.C. 467 (Sup. Ct.), dist. [para. 42].

Counsel:

V.M. May, Q.C., for the appellant;

J. Barrie Marshall and B. O'Ferrall, for the respondents.

Martin, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, heard this application on July 28, 2004, and delivered the following oral judgment on July 30, 2004.