The British Columbia Court of Appeal has granted Julie Berg, sister of Jeffrey Berg, deceased, leave to appeal the decision of public hearing adjudicator Brian C. Weddell, Q.C. Despite opposition from lawyers representing Police Complaint Commissioner Ryneveld and VPD Constable Bruce-Thomas, Mr. Justice Donald ordered that leave to appeal be granted on the following grounds:

1. that the adjudicator erred in law in admitting into evidence and relying on an agreed statement of facts that in fact had not been agreed to by the parties to the hearing;

2. that the adjudicator erred in law by conducting a hearing that violated the principles of natural justice and denied the complainant procedural fairness; and

3. that the adjudicator erred in law by finding that David Bruce-Thomas did not commit the disciplinary default of abuse of authority by using unnecessary force on the person of Jeffrey Michael Berg causing his death…

It is expected that Ms. Berg’s appeal will be heard by three justices of the Court of Appeal later this year, but a hearing date has not yet been set.

The parents and sister of a man who died almost a year ago after being jolted by 50,000 volts of electricity by Vancouver police are frustrated by their inability to get any answers to their questions.

Is a tuition fee increase from $7,000 to $28,000 an “adjustment”? That question may be considered by the Court of Appeal later this year.

Six MBA students from the University of British Columbia have filed an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissing their case against UBC. The students allege that the university had breached a contract when it quadrupled MBA tuition fees from $7,000 to $28,000 after they had accepted offers of admission indicating that tuition fees would be the lower amount. The university maintains, and the lower court found, that fine print in the offer enabled UBC to raise fees to any level it chose, even after the students had accepted the offers and sent in their non-refundable deposits. The contractual clause reads: “Fees for the year are subject to adjustment and the University reserves the right to change fees without notice.”

It may take some time before the students’ case will be argued, however. Lawyers for UBC have filed a motion asking the Court of Appeal to stay the appeal until the students post about ten thousand dollars in security for the University’s costs. (UBC has an annual budget of about $2.1 billion). That motion is scheduled to be heard at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 in Vancouver. A date for the hearing of the appeal on its merits will be set later.

Read the decision of the B.C. Supreme Court under appeal

The Court of Appeal has allowed the appeal of a homeless man from the granting of an interlocutory injunction that resulted in the arrest and imprisonment of 48 people who had been squatting in the abandoned Woodward’s building in Vancouver in the fall of 2003. The decision recognises that procedural rights must be afforded persons who are targeted by legal proceedings.

The Court also allowed the appeal of Provincial Rental Housing Corp., a Crown corporation that owned the building, from an order requiring it to pay $100 in court costs to each of the unrepresented persons who were arrested and later brought before the lower court.

Finally, in a separate decision, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of other homeless people who had alleged procedural irregularities in the granting of the City of Vancouver’s application for a second interlocutory injunction.

The decision of the Court of Appeal to set aside the injunction is significant, in that the Court of Appeal acknowledged the importance of free expression and dissent and sharply criticised the manner in which the lower court enjoined the homeless people’s protest.

Injunctions, and the court’s power to punish for contempt if injunctions are disobeyed, are strong weapons that are often brought to bear on demonstrators in British Columbia. Examples of this practice, which some feel is draconian, are the Clayoquot Sound demonstrations, where some 900 people were jailed, and the case of Betty Krawczyk, the elderly activist who spent about 9 months in a jail cell after symbolically sitting on a public logging road and refusing to move. Her conviction for contempt of court is under appeal.

Read the recent Court of Appeal decisions:

2005 BCCA 36 Provincial Rental Housing Corporation v. Hall

2005 BCCA 37 Vancouver (City) v. Maurice

British Columbia’s system for processing complaints about municipal police officers is seriously flawed and needs to be reformed if it is to have any effectiveness. That is the gist of a letter we have sent to the province’s Premier, Solicitor General, Police Complaint Commissioner and others.

After giving the new system some six years to iron out its kinks, we have reluctantly concluded that, from the point of view of civilian complainants, it is simply not working. We have found fundamental flaws at each stage of the process.

After a complaint is lodged, it is investigated by police themselves, who often take over a year to reach the conclusion that the complaint is “unsubstantiated”. The investigative report is then delivered to the Police Complaint Commissioner and the Chief Constable of the police force involved, but kept secret from the complainant and the public. In the few cases where a public hearing is ordered, the complainant faces a completely one-sided and unfair hearing process. The complainant must deal with a battery of publicly funded lawyers representing the police interests and the Police Complaint Commission. No legal aid funding of any kind is available to the complainant, who is effectively excluded from participating as a result.

Effective civilian oversight is essential in any society that wants to ensure that police do not abuse their substantial powers. That oversight must be patently independent, transparent and effective. Right now, it has none of those attributes.

Read our letter to the Premier