Friends of the Oldman River Society et al. v. Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists (Alta.) et al., (1997) 208 A.R. 28 (QB)

• Judge: Cooke, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: September 24, 1997
• Citations: (1997), 208 A.R. 28 (QB)

Oldman River Soc. v. APEGG (1997), 208 A.R. 28 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1997] A.R. TBEd. OC.029

In The Matter Of The Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Act, R.S.A. 1985, c. E-11.1

Friends of the Oldman River Society and Opron Construction Co. Ltd. (applicants) v. Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta and Council of the Association of Professional Engineers Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (respondents)

(Action No. 9603 09782)

Indexed As: Friends of the Oldman River Society et al. v. Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists (Alta.) et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Cooke, J.

September 24, 1997.

Summary:

Friends of the Oldman River Society (FOR) complained about the conduct of four engineers (Thiessen, Melnychuk, Ruttan and Nicholson). Following an investigation, the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA) indicated that no disciplinary action would be taken. The decision to terminate the investigation was made not­withstanding that Opron Construction Co. sent letters in support of FOR's complaint and subsequently complained about the conduct of another engineer (Campbell). FOR and Opron appealed. The Council of APEGGA held a hearing (the October hear­ing) and decided not to proceed with a formal disciplinary hearing. FOR and Opron filed an originating notice for judicial review, seeking to quash the decision of APEGGA and directing that a formal dis­ciplinary hearing be held regarding the engineers' conduct. FOR and Opron filed a notice of motion requesting an order direct­ing APEGGA and the Council to deliver-up the record from the October hearing includ­ing a transcript of the proceedings and all evidence considered by the Council. APEGGA and the engineers each applied to quash FOR's and Opron's originating notice for judicial review.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application of FOR and Opron respecting delivery of the record. The court dismissed the application of APEGGA and the engineers to quash the originating notice of motion filed by FOR and Opron.

Administrative Law - Topic 1024.1

Classification of power or function - In­vestigation or review process established by tribunal - Friends of the Oldman River Society (FOR) and Opron Construction complained about several engineers - The Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA) investigated and decided not to proceed further - FOR and Opron appealed - The Council of APEGGA held a hearing and decided not to proceed with a formal disciplinary hearing - FOR and Opron sought judicial review - APEGGA sought to quash the judicial review application, arguing that the appeal was not a hearing but merely part of the investigation and therefore the proceeding was not quasi-judicial nor subject to judicial review - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the appeal appeared to be a quasi-judicial proceeding and therefore prima facie sub­ject to judicial review - However, the court left open the question for further argument at the judicial review hearing - See para­graphs 14 to 32.

Administrative Law - Topic 1213

Classification of power or function - Powers or functions classified as quasi-judicial - Professional review committees -[See Administrative Law - Topic 1024.1 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 5060

Judicial review - Certiorari - The record (incl. return) - What constitutes the "record" - Friends of the Oldman River Society (FOR) and Opron Construction complained about several engineers - The Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA) investigated and decided not to proceed further - FOR and Opron appealed - The Council of APEGGA held a hearing and decided not to proceed with a formal disciplinary hearing - FOR and Opron sought judicial review and applied to have APEGGA deliver-up the record from the appeal hearing including a transcript and all evidence considered - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed FOR's and Opron's application - See paragraphs 80 to 95.

Administrative Law - Topic 5402

Judicial review - Certiorari - Practice - Persons entitled to apply - Friends of the Oldman River Society (FOR) and Opron Construction complained about several engineers - The Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA) investigated and decided not to proceed further - FOR and Opron appealed - The Council of APEGGA held a hearing and decided not to proceed with a formal disciplinary hearing - FOR and Opron sought judicial review - APEGGA sought to quash the judicial review application, arguing that the FOR and Opron (the complainants) lacked standing - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the complainants should have standing to bring their judicial review application before the court either because they were persons aggrieved or had public interest standing - See paragraphs 33 to 72.

Practice - Topic 221

Persons who can sue and be sued - In­dividuals and corporations - Status or standing - Public interest standing - Re­quirements of - [See Administrative Law - Topic 5402 ].

Professional Occupations - Topic 3289

Engineers - Disciplinary proceedings - Appeals and judicial review - [See Ad­ministrative Law - Topic 1024.1 , Ad­ministrative Law - Topic 5060 and Ad­ministrative Law - Topic 5402 ].

Cases Noticed:

Opron Construction Co. v. Alberta (1994), 151 A.R. 241 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 4].

Johannesson v. Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Commission (Alta.) (1995), 175 A.R. 34; 32 Alta. L.R.(3d) 373 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 17].

Seafarers International Union of Canada v. Canadian National Railways Co., [1976] 2 F.C. 369 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Wiseman v. Borneman, [1967] 3 All E.R. 1045 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Guay v. Lafleur (1964), 47 D.L.R.(2d) 226 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

Stumbillich Estate v. Health Disciplines Board (1984), 6 O.A.C. 51; 47 O.R.(2d) 545 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Finlay v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 607; 71 N.R. 338; 33 D.L.R.(4th) 321; [1987] 1 W.W.R. 603, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board (1966), 57 D.L.R.(2d) 163 (Sask. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 41].

Regina Grey Nuns' Hospital Employees' Association v. Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board, [1950] 2 W.W.R. 659 (Sask. K.B.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Law (1915), 9 W.W.R. 1075 (Alta. S.C.), refd to. [para. 42].

Canadian Forest Products Ltd.'s Certiorari Application, Re (1960), 32 W.W.R.(N.S.) 676 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 45].

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1525 v. Norfab Homes Ltd., [1976] 1 W.W.R. 621 (Alta. S.C.), refd to. [para. 45].

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1525 v. Coyle - see United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1525 v. Norfab Homes Ltd.

Bohnet and Sparrow v. Law Society of Alberta et al. (1992), 129 A.R. 67; 2 Alta. L.R.(3d) 6 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 45].

Griffel v. Royal College of Dental Sur­geons (Ont.) (1991), 44 O.A.C. 141; 79 D.L.R.(4th) 129 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 45].

Alberta Civil Service Association v. Farran (1976), 68 D.L.R.(3d) 338 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

Gaetz v. Palacios-Boix and Provincial Medical Board (N.S.) (1993), 121 N.S.R.(2d) 324; 335 A.P.R. 324 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 48].

Schepanovich v. Alberta Association of Psychologists (1992), 128 A.R. 363 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 54].

Thorson v. Canada (Attorney General), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 138; 1 N.R. 225; 43 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 60].

Nova Scotia Board of Censors v. McNeil, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 265; 5 N.R. 43; 12 N.S.R.(2d) 85; 6 A.P.R. 85, refd to. [para. 60].

Borowski v. Minister of Justice of Canada, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 575; 39 N.R. 331; 12 Sask.R. 420; [1982] 1 W.W.R. 97, refd to. [para. 60].

Finlay v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 607; 71 N.R. 338; [1987] 1 W.W.R. 603, refd to. [para. 60].

Reese et al. v. Alberta (Minister of Forestry, Lands and Wildlife) et al. (1992), 123 A.R. 241; 85 Alta. L.R.(2d) 153 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 63].

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 30 et al. v. WMI Waste Manage­ment of Canada Inc. (1996), 178 A.R. 297; 110 W.A.C. 297 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

Pearlman v. Manitoba Law Society Ju­dicial Committee, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 869; 130 N.R. 121; 75 Man.R.(2d) 81; 6 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 68].

Royal College of Dental Surgeons (Ont.) v. Rocket and Price, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 232; 111 N.R. 161; 40 O.A.C. 241; 71 D.L.R.(4th) 68, refd to. [para. 68].

Howe v. Institute of Chartered Accountants (Ont.) (1994), 74 O.A.C. 26; 27 Admin. L.R.(2d) 118 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 75].

Gage v. Ontario (Attorney General) (1992), 55 O.A.C. 47; 90 D.L.R.(4th) 537 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 75].

Ontario College of Art v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.) (1993), 63 O.A.C. 393; 11 O.R.(3d) 798 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 75].

Regina v. Nailsworth Licensing Justices, [1953] 1 W.L.R. 1046 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 79].

Lornex Mining Corp. v. Bukwa (1976), 69 D.L.R.(3d) 705 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 79].

Baumann et al. v. Bonderover et al. (1986), 45 Alta. L.R.(2d) 168 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 82].

Labour Relations Board (Alta.) v. Inter­national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1007 (1991), 83 Alta. L.R.(2d) 253 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 83].

Statutes Noticed:

Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Act, S.A. 1981, c. E-11.1, sect. 42(1), sect. 43(1), sect. 44(1), sect. 44(2.1), sect. 45, sect. 46, sect. 47(1), sect. 47(2), sect. 48, sect. 49(1), sect. 49(2), sect. 49(3), sect. 49(4), sect. 50(1), sect. 50(2), sect. 51(1), sect. 53, sect. 54, sect. 55(1), sect. 62(1), sect. 62(2), sect. 62(3), sect. 62(4), sect. 66(2), sect. 66(3), sect. 66(4) [para. 10].

Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148, sect. 126(4), sect. 126(8) [para. 28].

Inquiries Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 154, sect. 4 [para. 28].

National Transportation Act, R.S.C. 1985 (3rd Supp.), c. 28, sect. 27(3), sect. 27(4) [para. 19].

Psychology Profession Act, S.A. 1985, c. P-25.01, sect. 34 [para. 56].

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 753.1(1), rule 753.1(3), rule 753.11(1), rule 753.12(1), rule 753.13(1), rule 753.13(5), rule 753.13(6) [para. 11].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed.), p. 721 [para. 30].

Cromwell, T.A., Locus Standi: A Com­mentary on the Law of Standing in Canada (1986), generally [para. 40]; p. 119 [para. 60].

Evans, J.M., Administrative Law: Cases, Text, and Materials (3rd Ed. 1989), generally [para. 40].

Counsel:

Barry J. Massing, for the respondents;

Arthur P. Hnatiuk, Q.C., for J. Thiessen, P. Melnychuk, J. Ruttan, B. Nicolson and J. Campbell;

Jennifer J. Klimek, for the applicants.

This application was heard before Cooke, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on September 24, 1997.