Young v. Saanich Police Department, 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII).

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 74 considered the criteria for adjournments set out in procedural Rule 6.5 and exercised his discretion against the petitioners. I note that on August 15, 2002, counsel for the petitioners was unable to say how long an adjournment was required and the arbitrator had to balance that uncertainty against the consequences of delaying the hearing for the CRHC, which had already issued a termination notice effective August 31, 2002, as well as for other tenants in the complex. Keeping in mind 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII) that the arbitrator was dealing with the petitioners' application, I am not persuaded that the arbitrator erred in any way in refusing the applications or that any procedural unfairness resulted. Wrongful Denial of Attendance at the Hearing by a Member of the Public [151] The arbitrator upheld an objection by the CRHC to the proposed presence of an individual who was not a party or a witness on August 26, 2002. Rule 11.11 provides for exclusion unless the arbitrator permits otherwise. It is for the arbitrator to decide if the hearing is open generally to the public. I have reviewed his reasons for upholding the objection and am unable to find any basis for review.
Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 75 The Refusal to Exclude Ms. Jaarsma [152] Counsel for the petitioner sought to exclude Ms. Jaarsma from the hearing, but the arbitrator declined to do so on the basis that she was one of the two representatives of the CRHC instructing counsel. Ms. Jaarsma did not testify at the hearing. There was no possible prejudice to the petitioners and I find no merit in this complaint. 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII) The Alleged Refusal to Visit the Complex to Determine Whether the Smell of Marihuana was Present [153] The petitioners say that Arbitrator Gilbert wrongly declined to visit the petitioners' residence and the surrounding complex. During the first day of proceedings, counsel for the petitioners requested that the arbitrator attend at Beechwood Park as part of the fact-finding process. He proposed that Mr. Young could smoke marihuana in his apartment while the arbitrator waited in the hallway to determine whether or not an odour of marihuana did, in fact, escape from the petitioners' suite. [154] Counsel for the CRHC opposed the idea at the time, arguing that the petitioners' claim that other tenants could not smell the marihuana was untenable. Counsel told the arbitrator that marihuana smoke gives off a "pungent, easily
Page 1 and 2:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COL
Page 3 and 4:
Young v. Saanich Police Department,
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24: Young v. Saanich Police Department,
Page 73: Young v. Saanich Police Department,
show all

Young v. Saanich Police Department, 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII).

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?