Omineca Enterprises Ltd. v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) et al., (1993) 37 B.C.A.C. 123 (CA)

• Judge: McEachern, C.J.B.C., Gibbs and Prowse, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: September 13, 1993
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1993), 37 B.C.A.C. 123 (CA)

Omineca Ent. Ltd. v. B.C. (1993), 37 B.C.A.C. 123 (CA);

    60 W.A.C. 123

MLB headnote and full text

Omineca Enterprises Ltd. (petitioner/appellant) v. Minister of Forests and The Appeal Board Appointed Pursuant to the Forest Act by Order-in-Council Number 349 dated March 6, 1992 (respondents/respondents)

(CA015910)

Indexed As: Omineca Enterprises Ltd. v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

McEachern, C.J.B.C., Gibbs and Prowse, JJ.A.

November 18, 1993.

Summary:

A regional manager cancelled two timber sale harvesting licences held by Omineca. Omineca appealed unsuccessfully to the chief forester. Omineca appealed under s. 156(2) of the Forest Act to an Appeal Board. Omineca made a preliminary objection to the presence of counsel for the Board, which was overruled. Omineca appealed to the Supreme Court under s. 156(8) of the Act and by way of petition under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed the petition for review. Omineca appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, McEachern, C.J.B.C., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 2088

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal - Bias - Apprehension of - The appellant complained that an Appeal Board, appointed under s. 156(2) of the Forest Act, did not have a right to the assistance of counsel for advice in pro­cedural or any other matters - The appel­lants alleged bias - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that this was not an apprehension of bias case, because the alleged bias here was not against the deci­sion maker (the Board), but against the process itself - Further, the allegation of bias was premature - See paragraphs 20 to 31.

Administrative Law - Topic 8934

Boards and tribunals - Powers - To retain counsel - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that an Appeal Board appointed under s. 156(2) of the Forest Act, like any other administrative tribunal, had the power to retain counsel for advice providing the role of counsel was "consist­ent with the principles of fairness and natural justice" - The court affirmed that the retainer of counsel at the Board's request to assist in the proper conduct of the hearing was a question of procedure for the Board in respect of the exercise of its statutory jurisdiction - See paragraphs 10 to 19.

Words and Phrases

Submissions - The British Columbia Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the word "submissions", as found in s. 156(4) of the Forest Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 140 - See paragraph 18.

Cases Noticed:

Cedarvale Tree Services Ltd. v. Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183 (1971), 3 O.R. 382 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Prassad v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 560; 93 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 15].

Committee for Justice and Liberty Foun­dation et al. v. National Energy Board et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369; 9 N.R. 115, refd to. [para. 20].

Bennett et al. v. British Columbia Secur­ities Commission (1992), 18 B.C.A.C. 191; 31 W.A.C. 191; 94 D.L.R.(4th) 339, refd to. [para. 21].

Consolidated-Bathurst Packaging Ltd. v. International Woodworkers of America, Local 2-69 and Labour Relations Board (Ont.), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 282; 105 N.R. 161; 38 O.A.C. 321; 68 D.L.R.(4th) 524; 90 C.L.L.C. 14,007; 42 Admin. L.R. 1, refd to. [para. 29].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Carlyle (Town), [1987] 4 W.W.R. 232; 56 Sask.R. 91, refd to. [para. 31].

Pasiechnyk et al. v. Procrane Inc. et al., [1992] 3 W.W.R. 374; 97 Sask.R. 286; 12 W.A.C. 286 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Hundal v. British Columbia (Superinten­dent of Motor Vehicles) (1985), 32 M.V.R. 197 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

Murphy v. Dowhaniuk (1986), 22 Admin. L.R. 81 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Canada (Labour Relations Board) (1971), 18 D.L.R.(3d) 226 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

Tremblay v. Commission des affaires sociales et autre, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 952; 136 N.R. 5; 47 Q.A.C. 169, consd. [para. 59].

Venczel v. Ontario Association of Archi­tects (1990), 41 O.A.C. 50; 45 Admin. L.R. 288 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 60].

Khan v. College of Physicians and Sur­geons (Ont.) (1990), 43 O.A.C. 130; 48 Admin. L.R. 118 (Div. Ct.), consd. [para. 61].

Kane v. Board of Governors of the Uni­versity of British Columbia, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1105; 31 N.R. 214, consd. [para. 64].

Statutes Noticed:

Attorney General Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 23, sect. 2 [para. 52].

Forest Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 140, sect. 154, sect. 155, sect. 156 [para. 18]; sect. 156(2) [paras. 1-2]; sect. 156(3) [para. 29]; sect. 156(4) [paras. 13, 16-17, 29, 37]; sect. 156(5) [para. 16]; sect. 157 [para. 18].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Black's Law Dictionary (5th Ed. 1979), generally [paras. 12, 29].

Jones, D. and de Villars, A., Principles of Administrative Law (1985), generally [para. 29]; c. 8, p. 197 to 241 [para. 56].

Counsel:

Stephen H. Tick, for the appellant;

Angela R. Westmacott, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, on September 13, 1993, before McEachern, C.J.B.C., Gibbs and Prowse, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered on November 18, 1993, and the following opinions were filed:

Gibbs, J.A. (Prowse, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 35;

McEachern, C.J.B.C., dissenting - see paragraphs 36 to 70.