• Bill Warrington v. Deputy Director of Fisheries

    Decision Date:
    1994-01-17
    File Numbers:
    Decision Numbers:
    93/05(a)
    Third Party:
    Disposition:
    BOARD HAS AUTHORITY TO HEAR THE CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS IN APPEAL

    Summary

    Decision Date: January 17, 1994

    Panel: Linda Michaluk, Harry Higgins, Harry Hunter

    Mr. Warrington applied to the regional manager for an angling guide licence. The Wildlife Act requires that angling guides be either a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident of Canada, and Mr. Warrington was neither. When the Regional Manager denied him a licence, Mr. Warrington appealed to the Board, arguing that the Act violated his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Although the appeal has not yet been resolved, the Board considered whether it was able to consider constitutional questions.

    According to the courts, an administrative tribunal can address a Charter issue if the tribunal has “jurisdiction over the parties, the subject matter of the appeal and the remedy sought” or if the power to interpret law is conferred upon the tribunal in its enabling statute. The Environmental Management Act, when read with the other Acts which the Board hears appeals under, meets this test. However, the Board cannot “strike down” legislation as unconstitutional. Its decisions are limited to the matter before it. The Board decided that it may consider constitutional arguments.