Paterson v. Skate Canada, 2004 ABQB 969

• Judge: Moen, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 24, 2004
• Citations: 2004 ABQB 969;(2004), 373 A.R. 81 (QB)

Paterson v. Skate Can. (2004), 373 A.R. 81 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] A.R. TBEd. JA.063

Gary Paterson and Stacey Paterson (plaintiffs) v. Skate Canada (defendant)

(0203 14303; 2004 ABQB 969)

Indexed As: Paterson v. Skate Canada

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Moen, J.

December 22, 2004.

Summary:

Skate Canada commenced an investigation into complaints registered against two professional figure skating coaches. The coaches objected to the procedure adopted for the investigation, particularly the association's refusal to allow the coaches' counsel to cross-examine witnesses. The coaches applied for an order prohibiting Skate Canada from disciplining or expelling them except in accordance with the association's constitution and the rules of natural justice.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application, granting both a declaration that Skate Canada had breached its duty to be fair and an order prohibiting the association from proceeding further with the charges against the coaches without providing for a hearing that allowed for cross-examination of the complainants and for the coaches to call their own witnesses.

Administrative Law - Topic 350

The hearing and decision - Nature or extent of the hearing - Opportunity to present evidence - [See Administrative Law - Topic 351 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 351

The hearing and decision - Nature or extent of the hearing - Opportunity to cross-examine - Two professional figure skating coaches objected to Skate Canada's procedure in an investigation into complaints - The coaches were provided with written copies of the complaints but were not allowed to cross-examine the complainants during the investigation - The hearing allowed for oral submissions only - They would not be able to call witnesses at the hearing or cross-examine complainants - The coaches applied for judicial review - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application - Where a person was facing disciplinary charges before a tribunal that was constitutionally obliged to accord due process and where the allegations were serious, that person was entitled to cross-examine the accusers and to bring their own evidence to contradict that of the complainants - To be able to respond fully to the allegations, the coaches had to be able to test the credibility and evidence of the complainants - Skate Canada had breached the rules of natural justice and was prohibited from proceeding with the charges without providing for a hearing that permitted the coaches to cross-examine complainants and to call their own witnesses.

Administrative Law - Topic 2004

Natural justice - What are requirements of natural justice - [See Administrative Law - Topic 351 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2266

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - What constitutes procedural fairness - [See Administrative Law - Topic 351 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2491

Natural justice - Procedure - At hearing - Cross-examination - [See Administrative Law - Topic 351 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2494

Natural justice - Procedure - At hearing - Opportunity to present evidence - [See Administrative Law - Topic 351 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2611

Natural justice - Evidence and proof - Witnesses - Cross-examination of - [See Administrative Law - Topic 351 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2617

Natural justice - Evidence and proof - Disclosure - During an investigation into complaints registered against two professional figure skating coaches, the coaches requested statements made by complainants during interviews with investigators - The association provided written copies of the complaints but refused to provide notes made by investigators - In a decision on the coaches' application for judicial review, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench indicated that, in accordance with natural justice, the association was required to disclose all of the information investigators had collected from whatever source - It appeared that the association had disclosed the notes just prior to the application, but, if they had not, they were required to do so.

Administrative Law - Topic 3348

Judicial review - General - Practice - Time for application - Two professional figure skating coaches subject to complaints objected to the investigation process, particularly Skate Canada's refusal to allow the coaches to cross-examine complainants prior to the hearing - The hearing procedure did not allow for cross-examination or for the coaches to call their own witnesses - The coaches applied for judicial review - Skate Canada argued that the application was premature because the process was only at the complaint stage - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application - To be able to respond fully to the allegations, the coaches had to be able to test the credibility and evidence of the complainants - The association had already decided that they would not be able to do so at the hearing - Therefore an application for judicial review of the denial to do so during the investigation was not premature - See paragraphs 7 to 13.

Administrative Law - Topic 6445

Judicial review - Prohibition - Grounds for granting order - Denial or potential denial of natural justice - [See Administrative Law - Topic 351 ].

Associations - Topic 1644

Expulsion of members - Invalid expulsions - Failure to observe natural justice - [See Administrative Law - Topic 351 ].

Cases Noticed:

Kaplan v. Canadian Institute of Actuaries (1994), 161 A.R. 321 (Q.B.), affd. (1997), 206 A.R. 268; 156 W.A.C. 268 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Falk v. Calgary Real Estate Board Co-operative Ltd. (2000), 265 A.R. 60 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 9].

Alberta Union of Provincial Employees v. Alberta et al. (2002), 310 A.R. 240 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 9].

Isley v. Northern Alberta Institute of Technology et al. (2004), 353 A.R. 99 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 9].

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. 14].

Voice Construction Ltd. v. Construction & General Workers' Union, Local 92 (2004), 318 N.R. 332; 346 A.R. 201; 320 W.A.C. 201 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 14].

Moreau-Bérubé v. New Brunswick (Judicial Council) - see Conseil de la magistrature (N.-B.) v. Moreau-Bérubé.

Conseil de la magistrature (N.-B.) v. Moreau-Bérubé, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 249; 281 N.R. 201; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 201; 636 A.P.R. 201, refd to. [para. 15].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 15].

Canadian Union of Public Employees et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 539; 304 N.R. 76; 173 O.A.C. 386, refd to. [para. 16].

Syndicat des employés de production du Québec et de l'Acadie v. Commission canadienne des droits de la personne et al. (1989), 100 N.R. 241; 62 D.L.R.(4th) 385 (S.C.C.), dist. [para. 17].

Knight v. Board of Education of Indian Head School Division No. 19, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 653; 106 N.R. 17; 83 Sask.R. 81, refd to. [para. 20].

Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners of Police and Ontario (Attorney General) (1979), 23 N.R. 410; 88 D.L.R.(3d) 671 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 41].

Smith, Kline & French Laboratories Ltd. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1987] 2 F.C. 359; 78 N.R. 30 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

Strathcona (County) No. 20 et al. v. MacLab Enterprises Ltd. (1971), 20 D.L.R.(3d) 200 (Alta. C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1971] S.C.R. xii, refd to. [para. 71].

M.S.S. et al. v. Company of the Cross (2002), 319 A.R. 271 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 71].

Hajee v. York University (1985), 11 O.A.C. 72 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 72].

Counsel:

G. Brent Gawne, for the plaintiff;

Maureen Baird (Johnson & Buchan LLP), for the defendant.

This application was heard on June 24, 2004, by Moen, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on December 22, 2004.