Juneja et al. v. Registrar of Motor Vehicle Services (Alta.), (2008) 459 A.R. 348 (QB)

• Judge: Read, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: September 12, 2008
• Citations: (2008), 459 A.R. 348 (QB);2008 ABQB 573

Juneja v. Reg. of Motor Vehicle (2008), 459 A.R. 348 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] A.R. TBEd. OC.083

Vishva Bhandu Juneja and Alberta Defensive Driving School (applicants) v. The Registrar of Motor Vehicle Services of Alberta (respondent)

(0803 08611; 2008 ABQB 573)

Indexed As: Juneja et al. v. Registrar of Motor Vehicle Services (Alta.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Read, J.

September 26, 2008.

Summary:

Juneja operated a driving school. The school became the target of an undercover police investigation. The investigating officer's report alleged that Juneja was using his position as a driving instructor to recruit prostitutes for establishments under his management and control. In response to the report, Alberta Transportation cancelled the school's and Juneja's licenses for driver training. The Alberta Transportation Safety Board dismissed an appeal. Juneja was charged with offences relating to prostitution. The Alberta Transportation suspended Juneja's and the school's licences pending the outcome of the criminal trial. Juneja and the school applied for judicial review of both the cancellation decision and the suspension decision.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench quashed the Board's decision upholding the cancellation. The court refused to review the suspension decision where Juneja and the school had effective appeal remedies which they had not exhausted.

Administrative Law - Topic 222

The hearing and decision - Right to be heard - When available - Juneja operated a driving school - The school became the target of an undercover police investigation - The investigating officer's report alleged that Juneja was using his position as a driving instructor to recruit prostitutes for establishments under his management and control - The Registrar of Motor Vehicles cancelled the school's and Juneja's licenses for driver training - An administrative appeal was dismissed - Juneja was charged with offences relating to prostitution - The Registrar suspended Juneja's and the school's licences pending the outcome of the criminal trial - They received notice of the suspension just days before their application for judicial review of the cancellation was scheduled to be heard - Instead of appealing the suspension, they applied for judicial review and bundled their applications together - With respect to the suspension, they alleged procedural unfairness in that they were not afforded the opportunity to make submissions prior to the suspension of their licences - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench refused to review the suspension decision because the applicants had effective appeal remedies which they had not exhausted - Alternatively, the court would have dismissed the application - The Registrar had no legislative authority to hold an oral hearing or receive submissions - Given the safety concerns in driver education and the fact that a full hearing was available shortly after the suspension decision, the duty of fairness did not require the Registrar to engage in such procedures as holding a hearing or receiving submissions before suspending the licenses - See paragraphs 15 to 38.

Administrative Law - Topic 268

The hearing and decision - Right to a hearing - Issue, variation or cancellation of a licence - [See Administrative Law - Topic 222 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3202

Judicial review - General - Scope or standard of review - Juneja operated a driving school - The Registrar of Motor Vehicles cancelled the school's and Juneja's licenses for driver training - An administrative appeal was dismissed - Juneja and the school applied for judicial review - Section 47.1(3) of the Traffic Safety Act specified that the standard of review was patent unreasonableness - The applicants asserted that, given the decision in New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (S.C.C.), s. 47.1(3) should be read as requiring a standard of reasonableness - Further, the fact that the Legislature had seen fit to legislate the standard could not oust the court's jurisdiction to review decisions and that, therefore it was still necessary to analyse the decision on the Dunsmuir analysis to determine the appropriate standard - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the assertions - The test to be applied was the patently unreasonable test - The court also rejected an assertion that the patently unreasonable test was essentially the same as the reasonableness test - The difference was one of degree - The patently unreasonable test required the court to give a high degree of deference to the Board's decision - The court could intervene only if the decision was "clearly irrational" or "evidently not in accordance with reason" - A patently unreasonable decision was so flawed that no amount of curial deference could justify letting it stand - See paragraphs 40 to 45.

Administrative Law - Topic 3221.1

Judicial review - General - Unreasonable and patently unreasonable distinguished - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3202 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3302

Judicial review - General - Bars - Alternate remedy - [See Administrative Law - Topic 222 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3302

Judicial review - General - Bars - Alternate remedy - Juneja operated a driving school - The school became the target of an undercover police investigation - The investigating officer's report alleged that Juneja was using his position as a driving instructor to recruit prostitutes for establishments under his management and control - The Registrar of Motor Vehicles cancelled the school's and Juneja's licenses for driver training - Alberta Transportation Safety Board dismissed an appeal (the cancellation decision) - Juneja was charged with offences relating to prostitution - The Registrar suspended Juneja and the school's licences pending the outcome of the criminal trial - Instead of appealing the suspension, Juneja and the school applied for judicial review - They asserted that an appeal of the cancellation decision was not an effective alternative remedy where the Board had already interpreted and applied the Driver Training and Driver Examination Regulation to the facts in the cancellation decision and thus encumbered by the burden of its previous findings, it was unlikely to revisit that interpretation - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the assertion - The Board considered ss. 48(1) and 49(1) of the Regulation in its cancellation decision, but would be required to consider ss. 48(2) and 49(2) in a suspension decision - The respective sections considered different criteria - The appeal process was fair, expeditious and efficient and was an adequate forum for resolving the issues - There was no reason to think that because the Board had already interpreted one section, it would interpret another section in the same fashion - See paragraphs 24 to 26.

Administrative Law - Topic 9102

Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Standard of review - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3202 ].

Trade Regulation - Topic 6604

Services, licensing and regulation - Particular services - Drivers education - [See Administrative Law - Topic 222 , Administrative Law - Topic 3202 and second Administrative Law - Topic 3302 ].

Trade Regulation - Topic 6604

Services, licensing and regulation - Particular services - Drivers education - Juneja operated a driving school - The school became the target of an undercover police investigation - The investigating officer's report alleged that Juneja was using his position as a driving instructor to recruit prostitutes for establishments under his management and control - The Registrar of Motor Vehicles cancelled the school's and Juneja's licenses for driver training - Alberta Transportation Safety Board dismissed an appeal, holding that Juneja and the school had breached policy 3.00.04, which they found was part of a document that they termed the "policy and procedure manual" - They also found that the manual received its authority from s. 49(1) of the Driver Training and Driver Examination Regulation - Additionally, the Board found that Juneja, in his application to renew the school's licence, had agreed to abide by the manual - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench quashed the decision - Sections 48(1) and 49(1) of the Regulation set out grounds on which the Registrar could cancel a licence - Two of these grounds were relevant: where a licencee was (1) in contravention of a "direction made by the Registrar" under the Regulation or (2) in contravention of a "term or condition of the licence" - The board had no evidence on which it could reasonably conclude that the manual was either a direction of the Registrar or a term or condition of the licence - The underlying legislation did not give the manual the force of law and no legal rights or obligations arose from it - If the Registrar wished to make the provisions of the manual a direction or a term or condition of the licence, he had to clearly indicate that he was doing so - There was no evidence pursuant to which the Board could have made the necessary linkage to determine that breach of the manual enabled the Registrar to cancel the licences under ss. 48 and 49 - The decision was clearly wrong, even on the patently unreasonable standard - See paragraphs 47 to 69.

Cases Noticed:

Alberta (Motor Vehicle Services, Infrastructure and Transportation) v. King, [2007] A.R. Uned. 415; 2007 ABQB 29, not folld. [para. 16].

McManus v. Calgary Chief of Police et al. (1998), 228 A.R. 160; 188 W.A.C. 160; 1998 ABCA 391, not folld. [para. 18].

Milner Power Inc. v. Energy and Utilities Board (Alta.) (2007), 417 A.R. 115; 410 W.A.C. 115; 2007 ABCA 265, folld. [para. 20].

Ellis-Don Ltd. v. Labour Relations Board (Ont.) et al., [2001] 1 S.C.R. 221; 265 N.R. 2; 140 O.A.C. 201; 194 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 2001 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 30].

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 894 v. Ellis Don Ltd. - see Ellis-Don Ltd. v. Labour Relations Board (Ont.) et al.

Boardwalk Reit LLP v. Edmonton (City) et al. (2008), 437 A.R. 347; 433 W.A.C. 347; 2008 ABCA 220, refd to. [para. 30].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 30].

Keefe et al. v. Edmonton (City) et al. (2002), 329 A.R. 149; 2002 ABQB 1098, affd. (2005), 363 A.R. 384; 343 W.A.C. 384; 2005 ABCA 144, refd to. [para. 37].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 41].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 43].

Ryan v. Law Society of New Brunswick, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 247; 302 N.R. 1; 257 N.B.R.(2d) 207; 674 A.P.R. 207, refd to. [para. 45].

Board of Education of Toronto v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation District 15 et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 487; 208 N.R. 245; 98 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 48].

Johnston et al. v. Director of Vital Statistics (Alta.) et al. (2008), 433 A.R. 147; 429 W.A.C. 147; 2008 ABCA 188, refd to. [para. 62].

Statutes Noticed:

Driver Training and Driver Examination Regulation - see Traffic Safety Act Regulations (Alta.).

Traffic Safety Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. T-6, sect. 47.1(3) [paras. 40, 42, 44].

Traffic Safety Act Regulations (Alta.), Driver Training and Driver Examination Regulation, Reg. 316/2002, sect. 48(1) [para. 6]; sect. 48(2) [para. 11]; sect. 49(1) [para. 6]; sect. 49(2) [para. 11].

Counsel:

Shawn A. Beaver (Taylor Beaver LLP), for the applicants;

Glenn Epp (Alberta Justice), for the respondent;

Gwendolyn J. Stewart-Palmer (Shores Jardine LLP), for the Transportation Safety Board.

This application was heard on September 12, 2008, by Read, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on September 26, 2008.