Meier v. Saskatchewan Institute of Agrologists, (2014) 461 Sask.R. 229 (QB)

• Judge: Layh, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: November 26, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2014), 461 Sask.R. 229 (QB);2014 SKQB 389

Meier v. Sask. Institute of Agrologists (2014), 461 Sask.R. 229 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] Sask.R. TBEd. DE.046

In The Matter Of a Complaint of Professional Misconduct before the Discipline Committee of the Saskatchewan Institute of Agrologists Against Garry Meier, Ridgedale, Saskatchewan

Garry Meier (appellant) v. Saskatchewan Institute of Agrologists (respondent)

(2014 QBG No. 28; 2014 SKQB 389)

Indexed As: Meier v. Saskatchewan Institute of Agrologists

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Melfort

Layh, J.

November 26, 2014.

Summary:

The Discipline Committee of the Saskatchewan Institute of Agrologists found Meier guilty of professional misconduct. At the penalty hearing, Meier raised an allegation of bias against the chairperson of the Discipline Committee. The Discipline Committee dismissed the allegation of bias and and imposed a penalty on Meier, namely that he stand reprimanded, complete the professionalism and ethics course conducted by the Institute and pay costs in the amount of $15,000 within six months. Failing completion of the latter two conditions, Meier was to be suspended as a member of the Institute. Meier appealed from the Discipline Committee's decisions.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 2088

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal (considerations incl. bias) - Bias - Apprehension of - The Discipline Committee of the Saskatchewan Institute of Agrologists found Meier guilty of professional misconduct - The charges alleged that Meier published photographs and text stating that the difference in crop development at Redland Farms at Balcarres was due to the crop's response to fertilizer placement by the two different methods of fertilizer and seed placement (side-row band versus mid-row band) even though Meier knew that the difference in rate of crop development was not due to fertilizer placement - At the penalty hearing, Meier alleged that the chairperson of the Discipline Committee (Lewko) had shown bias when he provided an opinion on an unrelated matter to a third party - Meier alleged that the opinion suggested that Lewko held disfavour toward Bourgault Industries Ltd., a farm machinery manufacturer who employed Meier and whose air seeder used the "side-row banding" system of seed and fertilizer placement - The Discipline Committee dismissed the bias allegation - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed Meier's appeal - The Discipline Committee did not err in concluding that Meier failed to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias - The Discipline Committee held that Meier's lack of professionalism arose from his poor science - It made no finding, nor was it concerned about, which method of fertilizer and seed placement was preferred - If the Discipline Committee was disinterested in the performance of Bourgault air seeders, then, even if Lewko harboured skepticism or ill-will against the mid-row banding system (which the Discipline Committee did not find), then no reasonable apprehension of bias could arise - See paragraphs 38 to 48

Administrative Law - Topic 6201

Judicial review - Statutory appeal - Scope or standard of review - General - [See Professional Occupations - Topic 6737 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 6207.1

Judicial review - Statutory appeal - Scope or standard of review - Question of fact or mixed law and fact - [See Professional Occupations - Topic 6737 ].

Professional Occupations - Topic 208

Boards and tribunals - Domestic tribunals - Statutory appeals - [See Professional Occupations - Topic 6737 ].

Professional Occupations - Topic 6723

Agrologists - Discipline and disciplinary proceedings - Professional misconduct - The Discipline committee of the Saskatchewan Institute of Agrologists found Meier guilty of professional misconduct - The charges alleged that Meier published photographs and text stating that the difference in crop development at Redland Farms at Balcarres was due to the crop's response to fertilizer placement by the two different methods of fertilizer and seed placement (side-row band versus mid-row band) even though Meier knew that the difference in rate of crop development was not due to fertilizer placement - Of pivotal significance to the Institute's measure of professionalism was Meier's failure to adhere to an agrologist's need to draw and publish conclusions only after an appropriate scientific investigation - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed Meier's appeal - The Discipline Committee's decision met the test of reasonableness - See paragraphs 30 to 37.

Professional Occupations - Topic 6735

Agrologists - Discipline and disciplinary proceedings - Costs - The Discipline Committee of the Saskatchewan Institute of Agrologists found Meier guilty of professional misconduct - The charges alleged that Meier published photographs and text stating that the difference in crop development at Redland Farms at Balcarres was due to the crop's response to fertilizer placement by the two different methods of fertilizer and seed placement (side-row band versus mid-row band) even though Meier knew that the difference in rate of crop development was not due to fertilizer placement - The Discipline Committee ordered that Meier stand reprimanded, that he complete the professionalism and ethics course conducted by the Institute and that he pay costs in the amount of $15,000 within six months - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed Meier's appeal from the costs order - The Discipline Committee considered Justice Ball's finding in Hamm v. Saskatchewan Institute of Agrologists, that costs for a two day hearing were more appropriately $9,000 rather than the sought amount of $12,090.99 - Given that Meier's hearing was three days, and the Hamm decision was over 10 years old, the Discipline Committee ordered costs of $15,000 against Meier, essentially a prorated extrapolation of the costs permitted in Hamm - The court stated that "I am hard pressed to disagree with the logic employed by the Discipline Committee in arriving at a suitable amount of costs and confirm that costs shall remain as ordered" - See paragraphs 49 to 50.

Professional Occupations - Topic 6737

Agrologists - Discipline and disciplinary proceedings - Statutory appeal (incl. standard of review) - Meier appealed from decisions of the Discipline Committee of the Saskatchewan Institute of Agrologists which found Meier guilty of professional misconduct and imposed a penalty - Meier took the position that the standard of appellate review effectively replaced Dunsmuir (S.C.C.) and the principles respecting judicial review - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench rejected Meier's position - The statutory right of appeal under s. 32 of the Agrologists Act did not replace the Dunsmuir standard with another standard of review - The court was mindful that s. 28 of the Act expressly stated that "Professional misconduct is a question of fact ... " - Findings of fact were the purview of the Discipline Committee and commanded a high degree of deference when subjected to judicial review - The reasonableness standard was appropriate - See paragraphs 21 to 29.

Cases Noticed:

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, appld. [para. 19].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 20].

Board of Education of Long Lake School Division No. 30 v. Schatz and Irwin et al., [1986] 5 W.W.R. 355; 49 Sask.R. 244 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Lensen v. Lensen, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 672; 79 N.R. 334; 64 Sask.R. 6, refd to. [para. 21].

Dr. Q., Re, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226; 302 N.R. 34; 179 B.C.A.C. 170; 295 W.A.C. 170; 2003 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 22].

Sydiaha v. College of Psychologists (Sask.) (2014), 443 Sask.R. 139; 2014 SKQB 112, refd to. [para. 23].

H.L. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2002), 227 Sask.R. 165; 287 W.A.C. 165; 2002 SKCA 131, revd. [2005] 1 S.C.R. 401; 333 N.R. 1; 262 Sask.R. 1; 347 W.A.C. 1; 2005 SCC 25, refd to. [para. 24].

Mellor v. Workers' Compensation Board (Sask.) (2012), 385 Sask.R. 210; 536 W.A.C. 210; 2012 SKCA 10, refd to. [para. 25].

Merchant v. Law Society of Saskatchewan (2009), 324 Sask.R. 108; 451 W.A.C. 108; 2009 SKCA 33, refd to. [para. 26].

McLean v. Law Society of Saskatchewan (2012), 385 Sask.R. 182; 536 W.A.C. 182; 2012 SKCA 7, refd to. [para. 26].

Peet v. Law Society of Saskatchewan  (2014), 446 Sask.R. 105; 621 W.A.C. 105; 2014 SKCA 109, refd to. [para. 26].

DeMaria v. Law Society of Saskatchewan (2013), 420 Sask.R. 230; 2013 SKQB 178, refd to. [para. 26].

Ali v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (Sask.) (2013), 418 Sask.R. 51; 2013 SKQB 37, refd to. [para. 26].

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 708; 424 N.R. 220; 317 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 340; 986 A.P.R. 340; 2011 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 31].

Kaminski v. Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists (B.C.), [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 468; 90 C.L.R.(3d) 263; 2010 BCSC 468, refd to. [para. 36].

Oledzki v. Law Society of Saskatchewan (2010), 362 Sask.R. 86; 500 W.A.C. 86; 2010 SKCA 120, refd to. [para. 37].

Aalbers v. Aalbers (2013), 417 Sask.R. 69; 580 W.A.C. 69; 2013 SKCA 64, refd to. [para. 41].

Brand v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (Sask.) (1990), 86 Sask.R. 18; 72 D.L.R.(4th) 446 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Statutes Noticed:

Agrologists Act, S.S. 1994, c. A-16.1, sect. 27 [para. 15]; sect. 28(1) [para. 16]; sect. 32(1), sect. 33, sect. 35 [para. 17].

Counsel:

Grant Carson, for the appellant;

Jay D. Watson, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Layh, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Melfort, who delivered the following judgment on November 26, 2014.