Barrow v. Manitoba (Minister of Education and Training), (1992) 99 Man.R.(2d) 1 (QB)

• Judge: Kroft, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: January 24, 1992
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1992), 99 Man.R.(2d) 1 (QB)

Barrow v. Man. (1992), 99 Man.R.(2d) 1 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

David Gordon Barrow (applicant) v. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of the Province of Manitoba, the Minister of Education and Training (respondent)

(Suit No. CI 91-01-59311)

Indexed As: Barrow v. Manitoba (Minister of Education and Training)

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Kroft, J.

January 24, 1992.

Summary:

Barrow was employed as a teacher and school principal. In May of 1989, following a school camping trip, Barrow was charged with two counts of assault. In July, the Minister of Education and Training sus­pended Barrow's teaching certificates pursu­ant to s. 6(1) of the Education Administra­tion Act. The Minister referred the matter to the Certificate Review Committee pursuant to the Act. In early 1990, Barrow was found guilty on two counts of assault and sen­tenced to three months' incarceration and a period of proba­tion. In July of 1990, the Certificate Review Committee conducted its hearings. Barrow appeared and made a submission. The Committee recommended that the Minister continue Barrow's suspen­sion and that Barrow be permitted to apply for reinstatement after two years. In August 1990, the Minister ordered an indefinite suspension with the option of applying for reinstatement after July, 1992. Barrow was not given a copy of the Committee's report, advised of its conclusions, or told of its recommendation. Also, the Minister never afforded Barrow an opportunity to be heard concerning the Committee's recommendation. Barrow applied to have the suspensions quashed and for a reasonable opportunity to present a response to the Committee's rec­ommendations to the Minister.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench quashed the suspensions and ordered the Minister to reconsider the matter after giving Barrow an opportunity to be heard.

Administrative Law - Topic 222

The hearing and decision - Right to be heard - When available - In May, a school teacher was charged with assault - In July, the Minister suspended the teach­er's teaching certificate and referred the matter to the Certificate Review Commit­tee - Following the teacher's conviction, the Committee held a hearing and sub­mitted its recommendation to the Minister - The Minister made the suspension in­definite - The teacher could apply for reinstatement after two years - The teacher applied to have the first suspension quashed on the ground the Minister failed to give him a hearing - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench quashed the first suspension on the ground there was no emergency to justify the failure to grant a hearing - See paragraphs 17 and 18.

Administrative Law - Topic 222

The hearing and decision - Right to be heard - When available - In May, a school teacher was charged with assault - In July, the Minister suspended the teach­er's teaching certificate and referred the matter to the Certificate Review Commit­tee - Following the teacher's conviction, the Committee held a hearing and sub­mitted its recommendation to the Minister - The Minister made the suspension in­definite - The teacher could apply for reinstatement after two years - The teacher applied to have the suspension quashed on the ground the Minister failed to allow him to see the Committee's recommendation and to make a reply - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench quashed the suspensions and ordered the Minister to reconsider the matter after Barrow had an opportunity to respond to the Committee's conclusions and recommendations - See paragraphs 19 to 32.

Administrative Law - Topic 4501

Judicial review - Declaratory action - General principles - When available - [See both Administrative Law - Topic 222 ].

Education - Topic 6407

Teachers - Discipline of - Suspension - [See both Administrative Law - Topic 222 ].

Cases Noticed:

Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners of Police et al., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 311; 23 N.R. 410; 88 D.L.R.(3d) 671, refd to. [para. 9].

Martineau v. Matsqui Institution Discipli­nary Board, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 602; 30 N.R. 119; 106 D.L.R.(3d) 385; 13 C.R.(3d) 1; 50 C.C.C.(2d) 353, refd to. [para. 9].

Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and National Anti-Poverty Organization v. Canada (Attorney General), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735; 33 N.R. 304; 115 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 9].

Alliance des professeurs catholiques de Montreal v. Labour Relations Board (Que.), [1953] 2 S.C.R. 140, refd to. [para. 9].

Kane v. Board of Governors of the Uni­versity of British Columbia, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1105; 31 N.R. 214; 110 D.L.R.(3d) 311, refd to. [para. 9].

Evershed v. Ontario (Minister of Educa­tion) (1985), 7 O.A.C. 307; 11 Admin. L.R. 164 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Statutes Noticed:

Education Administration Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. E-10; C.C.S.M., c. E-10, sect. 6(1) [para. 2].

Counsel:

M. Myers, Q.C., and P.S. Roy, for the applicant;

B.F. Squair, Q.C., for the respondent.

This application was heard before Kroft, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, who delivered orally the following judgment on January 24, 1992.