Fontaine v. Canada (Attorney General)

Fontaine v. Canada (Attorney General)

The supervising judge correctly refused judicial recourse because the appellant's complaints raised disputed factual findings that were within the exclusive domain of IAP adjudicators, there was evidence supporting the adjudicators' conclusions about the rapidity of the assault and the driver's prompt response, and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2019 BCCA 246
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Larry Philip Fontaine, et al.; Respondent (defendant): The Attorney General of Canada, et al.
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Class Proceedings (irssa Iap) / Appeal From Supervising Judge (request for Direction)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Independent Assessment Process, Judicial Recourse, Student on Student Sexual Assault (sos), Admissions, Procedural Fairness, Standard of Review
Source Language
english
Indigenous Law Class Actions Administrative Law Contract Interpretation Civil Torts (sexual Assault) Independent Assessment Process Judicial Recourse Student on Student Sexual Assault (sos) +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Larry Philip Fontaine, et al.

Appellant (plaintiff)

The Attorney General of Canada, et al.

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Class Proceedings (irssa Iap) / Appeal From Supervising Judge (request for Direction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Scope of judicial recourse under the IRSSA
  2. 2 Whether adjudicator failed to apply the IAP Model regarding reasonable steps to prevent SOS abuse
  3. 3 Whether published admissions required adjudicator to find lack of reasonable steps

Ratio Decidendi

The supervising judge correctly refused judicial recourse because the appellant's complaints raised disputed factual findings that were within the exclusive domain of IAP adjudicators, there was evidence supporting the adjudicators' conclusions about the rapidity of the assault and the driver's prompt response, and there was no failure to apply the IRSSA or the IAP Model nor were relevant admissions ignored.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed