Thimer v. Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Commission (Alta.), 2000 ABQB 706

• Judge: Watson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: Wednesday September 27, 2000
• Citations: 2000 ABQB 706;(2000), 276 A.R. 236 (QB)

Thimer v. WCBAC (2000), 276 A.R. 236 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] A.R. TBEd. NO.139

In The Matter Of the Workers' Compensation Act Being Chapter W-16 of the Revised Statutes of Alberta, 1980, As Amended;

And In The Matter Of a Statutory Power of Workers' Compensation Board to be exercised pursuant to the Workers' Compensation Act;

And In The Matter Of the Decision of the Provincial Ombudsman;

And In The Matter Of the Decision of the Appeals Commission;

And In The Matter Of the Decision of the Claims Services Review Committee Declining to Grant Compensation to the applicant Dale Randall Thimer.

Dale Randall Thimer (applicant) v. Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Commission (respondent)

(Action No. 9703-19756; 2000 ABQB 706)

Indexed As: Thimer v. Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Commission (Alta.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Watson, J.

October 12, 2000.

Summary:

Thimer applied for judicial review of a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Commission.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 3202

Judicial review - General - Scope or standard of review - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench reviewed case law respecting the determination of the standard of review applicable to decisions of administrative tribunals - The court held that decisions of the Workers' Compensation Board were subject to a standard of review of patent unreasonableness - See paragraphs 62 to 87.

Courts - Topic 87

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial decisions - Prior decisions of same court - Provincial courts - The applicant sought judicial review of a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Commission (the respondent) - The respondent argued that the application was statute barred and that rule 753.11(2) excluded the application of rule 548, which would otherwise have allowed an extension of time - The chambers judge stated that "in the interests of fairness I do not worry about that at all" - He advised the applicant to get a lawyer and adjourned the matter sine die - The applicant obtained counsel who filed a second Notice of Motion seeking a continuation of the judicial review application - A different judge of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench doubted the correctness of the first judge's decision on the timeliness issue, but refused to dismiss the application on that ground - The court cited adjudicative fairness (the applicant took steps on the basis of the first judge's statements) and the fact that it was not the Court of Appeal - The court also extended that time for taking out a formal order reflecting the chambers judge's decision on the basis of fairness - See paragraphs 3 to 13 and 37 to 61.

Practice - Topic 3088

Applications and motions - Applications - Limitation period - Extension of - [See Courts - Topic 87].

Practice - Topic 5419

Judgments and orders - General - Entry of judgments and orders - [See Courts - Topic 87].

Workers' Compensation - Topic 7124

Practice - Judicial review - Standard of review - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3202].

Cases Noticed:

Dwyer v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (Alta.) (1989), 98 A.R. 81 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 45, footnote 3].

Telus Communications Inc. et al. v. Opportunity No. 17 (Municipal District) (1998), 235 A.R. 258 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 45, footnote 4].

Dhillon v. Faculties Council Academic Appeals Committee of the University of Alberta et al. (2000), 259 A.R. 63 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 46, footnote 5].

Nicholson v. Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Commission (Alta.) (1998), 225 A.R. 105 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 46, footnote 6].

Krawec v. Workers' Compensation Board (Alta.) (1998), 233 A.R. 110 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 47, footnote 7].

Johannesson v. Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Commission (Alta.) (1995), 175 A.R. 34 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 48, footnote 8].

Skyline Roofing Ltd. et al. v. Workers' Compensation Board (Alta.) (1996), 186 A.R. 69 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 49, footnote 9].

Inter-Meridian Investing Ltd. et al. v. Assessment Appeal Board (Alta.) et al. (1997), 200 A.R. 378; 146 W.A.C. 378 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51, footnote 10].

Mainwaring v. Alberta, [2000] A.R. Uned. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59, footnote 11].

Reference Re Sections 32 and 34 of the Workers' Compensation Act (Nfld.), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 922; 96 N.R. 227; 76 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 235 A.P.R. 181, refd to. [para. 67, footnote 12].

Medicine Hat (City) et al. v. Wilson et al. (2000), 271 A.R. 96; 234 W.A.C. 96 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 67, footnote 13].

Pasiechnyk et al. v. Procrane Inc. et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 890; 216 N.R. 1; 158 Sask.R. 81; 153 W.A.C. 81; 149 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 68, footnote 14].

Syndicat national des employés de la commission scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048; 95 N.R. 161; 24 Q.A.C. 244; 35 Admin. L.R. 153, refd to. [para. 69, footnote 15].

Union des employés de service, Local 298 v. Bibeault - see Syndicat national des employés de la commission scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ).

Pezim v. British Columbia Securities Commission et al., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 557; 168 N.R. 321; 46 B.C.A.C. 1; 75 W.A.C. 1; [1994] 7 W.W.R. 1; 92 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; 14 B.C.R.(2d) 217; 22 Admin. L.R.(2d) 1; 114 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 70, footnote 16].

Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20, refd to. [para. 71].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982; [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201; 160 D.L.R.(4th) 193, appld. [para. 72, footnote 17].

Fenske et al. v. Alberta (Minister of Environment) et al. (2000), 272 A.R. 247 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 73, footnote 18].

Ramey v. Workers' Compensation Board (Alta.) (1997), 200 A.R. 59; 146 W.A.C. 59 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 74, footnote 20].

Dominion Canners Ltd. v. Costanza, [1923] S.C.R. 46, refd to. [para. 80, footnote 24].

Johannessen v. Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Commission (Alta.) (1998), 215 A.R. 325 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 85, footnote 27].

Paccar of Canada Ltd. v. Canadian Association of Industrial, Mechanical and Allied Workers, Local 14, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 983; 102 N.R. 1; 62 D.L.R.(4th) 437; 89 C.L.L.C. 14,050; [1989] 6 W.W.R. 673; 40 Admin. L.R. 181, refd to. [para. 85, footnote 28].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 941; 150 N.R. 161; 101 D.L.R.(4th) 673, refd to. [para. 86, footnote 29].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 327 [para. 42]; rule 548 [para. 41]; rule 753.11 [para. 40].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Jones, David Phillip, and de Villars, Anne S., Principles of Administrative Law (2nd Ed. 1994), p. 493 [para. 44, footnote 2].

Stevenson, W.A., and Côté, J.E., Alberta Civil Procedure Handbook (1999), p. 485 [para. 43, footnote 1].

Counsel:

John Bassie, for the applicant;

Sandra Hermiston, for the respondent.

This application was heard on September 27, 2000, by Watson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following decision on October 12, 2000.