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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 76 recognizable smell" noticeable, in his experience, from a considerable distance. [155] Arbitrator Gilbert observed that he had a poor sense of smell, but that it might prove to be a useful exercise. He told counsel for the petitioners to raise the issue again once all the evidence had been heard, if counsel still felt that a visit was warranted. 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII) [156] Counsel for the petitioners never raised the issue of a visit to Beechwood Park again in the proceedings before the arbitrator. Counsel has since deposed in an affidavit that he "saw no point" in renewing the application as there were time constraints to finish the hearing. [157] Rule 11.12 permits on-site inspections if the arbitrator so chooses. As the request was not repeated, Arbitrator Gilbert never had to decide the issue. He cannot be faulted for that. Instead, the arbitrator made the necessary findings of fact in the more traditional way by considering the evidence before him. I do not accede to this submission. Review of the Arbitrator's Findings of Fact [158] The balance of the petitioners' challenges relate to the fact-finding process and their criticisms of the
Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 77 arbitrator's conclusions. As I have earlier set out, the RTA contemplates a simplified, expeditious hearing. The arbitrator was not required to hear evidence under oath, although he frequently did so when requested to by counsel for the petitioners. Pursuant to s. 55(1)(c) of the RTA, the arbitrator is entitled to receive either evidence or information that would not be admissible in a court proceeding. Subject to the over-riding requirement of 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII) fairness, the Act is otherwise very permissive as to how the arbitrator gathers necessary information. Nothing in the Rules of Procedure alters these fundamental factors. [159] I have reviewed the findings of the arbitrator to determine whether there was some evidence on which he could reasonably base his conclusion that there were smells associated with the petitioner's use of marihuana that adversely affected other tenants in the complex. I am satisfied that there was. While the petitioners are understandably upset at the result, the judicial review process does not afford the opportunity for a reconsideration of factual issues. [160] I decline to set aside the order of Arbitrator Gilbert. It follows from the foregoing that I agree with the
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:
Page 25 and 26: Young v. Saanich Police Department,
Page 75: 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?