Legislative Assembly of British Columbia OMBUDSMAN 8 Bastion Square Victoria British Columbia V8W 1H9 Telephone: (604) 387-5855 Zenith 2221 May, 1982 The Honourable H. W. Schroeder Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Parliament Buildings Victoria, British Columbia Mr. Speaker: I have the honour and duty to submit to you my Annual Report in accordance with section 30 (1) of the Ombudsman Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 306. This Third Annual Report covers the period of January to December 1981. Respectfully yours, 7 £^&l**+\m m\ >» >u-^ / Karl A. Friedmann Ombudsman u_ British Columbia. Office of the Ombudsman. Annual Report of the Ombudsman to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia— 1981- Continues: Annual report of the Ombudsman to the Legislature of British Columbia. ISSN 0226-8930 ISSN 0713-2921 = Annual report of the Ombudsman to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia I. British Columbia. Office of the Ombudsman. II. Title. JL429.5.04B75 354.711TJ091 lights of 1981 Annual Report.. TABLE OF CONTENTS I—General Comments k. Developing a Code of Administrative Justice 3 . Establishing the Ombudsman's Effectiveness 6 1. The Child Abuse Registry 7 2. "Not Rectified" 111111.1.3 8 I 3. Litigation 9 4. Resources and Productivity g 5. Access to the Ombudsman for the Public 9 6. Reports and Public Statements 10 . Specific Issues for the Attention of the Legislative Assembly 10 1. Expropriation Procedures and Practices 10 2. Wildlife Damage 11 3. Land Use Decisions and Land Disposal Practices 12 4. Enforcement of Maintenance Orders 15 5. Protection of Personal Information... 16 6. Police Complaints 17 7. Ex gratia Payments 18 —Complaints: The Work of the Ombudsman Office in 1981 Complainants and Complaints 21 Jurisdictional Complaints 22 Non-Jurisdictional Complaints 22 Impact 23 II—Comments on Ministries and Complaint Summaries 25 lgriculture and Food 25 Provincial Secretary 71 Rorney General. „ _._. 28 Transportation and Highways 72 Risumer and Corporate Affairs 36 Agricultural Land Commission 78 Bucation 39 Assessment Authority of B.C 78 Bergy, Mines and Petroleum Resources 42 B.C. Board of Parole 80 Kvironment 42 B.C. Ferry Corporation 81 ;hance 47 B.C. Housing Management Commission 82 Crests 49 B.C. Hydro and Power Authority 85 M;alth 53 Insurance Corporation of B.C 85 rliman Resources 57 Public Service Commission 88 l§our 61 Superannuation Commissioner 89 jnds, Parks and Housing 63 Workers' Compensation Board 89 Imicipal Affairs — 69 Non-jurisdictional authorities 96 ■'—Changes in Practices and Procedures " -Talkback 105 l-Tables J)le 1 —Profile of Complaints and Complainants 19Z file 2—Percentage of Complaints by Regional District 109 i)\e 3—Disposition of Complaints (Proclaimed Authorities) ■•••; ] ]° Tile 4—Extent of Service—Unproclaimed Authorities B * >* Tile 5—Extent of Service—Non-Jurisdictional Authorities y* 3iile 6—Reasons for Discontinuing Investigations J- 'Vi ;5>le 7—Level of Impact—Jurisdictional..- is my Third Annual Report, about my sec- IJEII year of operation: January to December :iplaining was up again in 1981. A total of 15 new complaints reached my office in the I year, an increase of 28% over 1980. pffice closed 4,765 complaints in 1981 of ih 2,757 (58%) were within jurisdiction, a Meant increase of jurisdictional case clos- I over 1980 when 1,888 (45%) of closed Iplaints were within jurisdiction. '81 I found it necessary to address three R.ial Reports to the Legislative Assembly Ixitstanding issues from those reports are Id in this Third Annual Report. (See "Not Bfied" and "Expropriation Procedures and aices") [ftober 1981 I published the first Public Re- I The subject was East Kootenay Range Is. One issue outstanding from that matter |o discussed in this Annual Report. (See Hi life Damage") ivai changes in procedures and practices ibrought about as a result of my recom- aations to Ministries, Boards and Commis- )1 (See Part IV and Table 7 in Part VI) (B'.C. Development Corporation challenged ®irt the Ombudsman's right to investigate sjactions and procedures. The B.C. Su- 9"! Court decided in B.C.D.C.'s favour. The oion is under appeal. helommission on Electoral Reform chal- ral my jurisdiction to investigate the Com- |i$£in's procedures and practices. I asked the CaSupreme Court for a declaration on the 38 of jurisdiction. The case was scheduled Fiflaring in January 1982 but was postponed 3T request pending the outcome of the •'- C. appeal. ns ber of issues are singled out in this Report rjt Legislature's attention: expropriation, n^3e and disposal practices, maintenance d^, protection of personal information, and >i© complaints. ^tg^O complaint summaries are presented ft III. All are equally interesting. For the afk in a hurry, I recommend the following: "The case of the missing transcript"—CS 81 - 007; "Liquor impropriety"—CS 81-024; "Regulation on probationary teachers unfair"—CS 81-038; "Garbage in, garbage out"—CS81- 046; "Inspecting pesticide permits"—CS81- 047; "Double tax is hardship, Cabinet agrees"— CS 81 -048; "Appeal information revisited"—CS 81-077; "Hearing on hearing-ear dog"—CS 81-086; "The battle of Buckley Bay"—CS81- 091; "One head lopped from many-headed Hydro"—CS 81-092; and "Driver can rebut claim he's unfit"—CS 81 -116; "It's not a farm if it doesn't sell produce"—CS 81-124; "Unfair procedures cause blow to captain's honour"—CS 81-129; "Taxed patience"—CS 81-138; "Speed shows compassion"—CS 81 -166. • The Attorney General's Ministry has significantly improved working relations with my office. Unfortunately a few issues remain. • The Ministry of Human Resources responded in exemplary fashion to recommendations about the child abuse registry. Significant improvements in fairness and effectiveness of child protection activities may be expected for the future. (See "The Child Abuse Registry" in Part I.) • The Ministry of Forests developed a model public involvement policy and actually practises it successfully. Full marks to Forestry for openness and fairness. Now, if only Lands, Parks and Housing followed the lead . . . (See respective Ministry comments in Part III and "Land Use Decisions and Land Use Practices" in Part I.) • The Ministry of Health agreed to significant improvements in procedures and practices (See Part IV). One disappointment during 1981: The Ministry collects a lot of personal and private information about all of us. But the Ministry refused my request that it study carefully its procedures and practices for protecting the safety of this personal information against unauthorized use or release. (See "Protection of Personal Information" in Part I.) • ICBC has in typica tempted to contain by instructing fielt stances" to answer man. Instead they bureaucratic fashion at- oontrol the Ombudsman staff "under no circum- iquiries by the Ombuds- supposed to give the Ombudsman the run-around by referring him to the l.C.B.C. Public Inquiries Department. What could l.C.B.C. possibly wish to hide? Isn't everybody happy with l.C.B.C. practices? (For the sorry details, see comments on page 85.) • Kudos to the Motor Vehicle Branch of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways: good solid work and reasonable improvements. Could be a bit more open-minded on bilingualism. (See "L'examen en frangais;'—CS 81-114.) • W.C.B.: a long hard slog. We are inching cMf to mutual understanding. Personnel change helped, too. • Sections3to11 of the Schedule to the Ombuds man Act remain unproclaimed. While I am ce tainly not under-employed the public keeps n questing proclamation. I am ready to implemei further sections of the Schedule should th Government and the Legislature decide to pr< claim. But as always: it will cost more. I PARTI GENERAL COMMENTS DEVELOPING A CODE OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE EiiLTUdsman Act outlines in Section 22 (1) a af opinions and judgements I may arrive at HDleting complaint investigations. My opin- prst be based on sound reasons, to facilitate lince and compliance with recommend- 5 rely on the persuasiveness of my reasons Isoning and on the authorities' sharing the underlying these reasons and opinions. xask for or expect blind acceptance of my fiendations by authorities but I hope for kd argument and informed consent. It is pi I for me to make these reasons explicit to iislligent debate and to banish suspicions rr judgements are based on arbitrary or ISteosyncratic considerations. I believe I 'le general community standards of fair- ibitizen-government relations as seen by dilative Assembly and the public. I empha- pbitizen's perception of that relationship so press the imbalance of power between the [Bial and the collective authority of latent. p most public officials share these basic pi fair administrative practices. Members legislative Assembly (in whose name I rate) and the general public may wish to re led of how I interpret administrative jus- N members of the public service need to rTar with these standards. Section 22 (1) provides as follows: Where, after completing an investigation, the Ombudsman believes that (a) a decision, recommendation, act or omission that was the subject matter of the investigation was (i) contrary to law; (ii) unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory; (iii) made, done or omitted pursuant to a statutory provision or other rule of law or practice that is unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory; (iv) based in whole or in part on a mistake of law or fact or on irrelevant grounds or consideration; (v) related to the application of arbitrary, unreasonable or unfair procedures; or (vi) otherwise wrong; (b) in doing or omitting an act or in making or acting on an authority (i) did so ft (ii) failed to priate re ture of tl (iii) was net or cision or recommendation, ■ an improper purpose; I give adequate and appro- tsons in relation to the na- e matter; or ligent or acted improperly; (c) there was unreasonable delay in dealing with the subject matter of the investigation, the Ombudsman shall report his opinion and the reasons for it to the authority and may make the recommendation he considers appropriate." A number of these terms have been the subject of interpretation by the courts for the purposes of judicial review of administrative action. I find those judicial interpretations most interesting and very useful, but my mandate as Ombudsman is, I believe, broader: the Ombudsman was intended to assist the public where judicial review of administrative action was not available. Through Section 22 the Legislature has imposed on me a duty to formulate my own interpretations. The following is therefore not intended as an explication of administrative law principles (for which reference should be made to the many texts available), but as a short guide to an Ombudsman code of administrative justice. Contrary to Law A public servant acts contrary to law when he makes a decision or does an act which he is not authorized by statute to make or do. He also may act contrary to law where he continues a practice or procedure which the courts have found to be unlawful. (See, for example, CS 80-075 on pp. 57-58 in my 1980 Annual Report, in which the Ministry had ignored an earlier Supreme Court decision and continued to interpret the statute in its own way.) In my opinion, if a public servant disagrees with a judicial interpretation of a statute, he is nonetheless bound by that interpretation until the statute is changed or the judicial decision is overruled. This approach is essential to the maintenance of the rule of law, a fundamental principle of democratic government. Unjust There are at least two kinds of injustice. The first occurs where a particular rule of law is applied inequitably or unfairly, so that its burden or benefit does not reach all those to whom it was intended to apply. The second kind of injustice occurs where the rule or law itself is unjust or inequitable. The former type of injustice is the primary concern of the courts in their interpretation and application of legal rules. It is also my concern. However, I may also look at the substance of the rule and determine whether it is a fair one or not. In such cases I may request that a statutory provision or regulation, practice or procedure be reconsidered in order to eliminate the injustice. I may also recommend that an administrator use his discretion to come to a different decision, w» such is permitted by law, if I believe that thecS nal decision was unjust. Oppressive An act or decision is oppressive which is inteSi to bully a citizen or which has the effect of oveffii dening him in the pursuit of his legal entitlemerr For example, an authority may require compliSi with preconditions that are only marginally reft to the service being provided; or the citizerfi be required to produce evidence which is beyoni his reasonable capacity to obtain. If an authorit uses its superior position or knowledge to placi the citizen at an unreasonable disadvantage or ti obtain compliance with its wishes in respect of ai otherwise unrelated matter, it acts oppresSl^ Improperly Discriminatory Discrimination is simply differential treatment. Nc every discrimination is improper. An act of dis crimination is improper if it is not reasonably re quired for the attainment of the overall purposeo objective of the administrative or legislapw scheme which ostensibly governs the decisra o act. Mistake of Law or Fact, or Irrelevant Grounds or Consideration The complexity of modern legislation makes inevitable that members of the public servici make mistakes from time to time in ascertains o interpreting the law. If an official has a questw ii his mind as to the existence of, or proper intei pretation of, a rule of law, he should seek legs advice before making a decision. There is also; more general duty on senior officials to ensure the their staff are properly apprised of the law.^Sei "Deciphering the governing statute" at p. 68of rrr 1980 Annual Report.) Mistakes of fact can usually be avoided by a fu and fair investigation of the situation before a deci sion is made. Sometimes I have found that government file contain irrelevant remarks about a citizen, such a his personal habits and character traits. For ex ample a comment made early in a file that a pei son "seems to have an alcohol problem" cai translate itself, as the file progresses, into an as sertion that the person is an alcoholic. The treat ment the citizen receives from the agency may » slanted by such remarks. Public servants shouii take care that irrelevant remarks do not enter oiti cial files and do not affect their attitude towards c decisions on individuals. I . ■ application of arbitrary, seasonable, or unfair procedures Mbitrary procedure is one which fails to permit n ews of those who have a legitimate interest in Itimate decision to be heard before the deals made. The degree of formality required for la hearing will vary with the degree of impact ■ecision may have on the citizen. The greater lipact on a citizen, or group of citizens, the J3r the need for a hearing and formality of the gig. | etermination of whether a procedure is un- Inable requires an examination of the pur- jfor which the procedure was established. I «ound a procedure for storing information to ■(reasonable because the safeguards for Kintiality of that information were less than Irate. idural unfairness manifests itself in many I and it encompasses an arbitrary pro- Be. I have, however, gone beyond the crite- W arbitrariness and found that a procedure lnfair which failed to provide for an appeal nanism. (See, tor example, "Grazing permits: -jht to be 'herd'"—CS81-063 below.) The jg Service Commission also engaged in an a procedure by collecting secret information informer employees which was kept on their ainel files and used later. (See "No more n ratings"—CS 81-149 below.) ■wise Wrong ■lading covers a wide variety of unaccepted inappropriate acts and conduct not cov- fly the other headings in this code. In my ti it refers to generally accepted standards •nbehaviour in modern society, sensitivity to asds of people served by public officials, Idtual integrity, good judgement, etc Exam- aacts or decisions that would be "otherwise ti are: failure to live up to commitments; the Jin inappropriate manner in dealing with the ji rudeness; knowingly sending a member public on a fruitless enquiry; failure to return pine calls or failure to respond to enquiries basts from the public. xper Purpose f9ie authority or an official is motivated by kflsm or personal animosity towards those |i|3 directly affected, or when there is an nth to promote an object other than that for pataO power has been conferred, I may find that pour decision has been done or made for an fqW purpose. *pate and Appropriate Reasons h|ew, giving reasons enhances public un- >t4Jing of the administration of public policy, thereby affording an opportunity for critical scrutiny, as well as providing a rational focus for public debate, judicial review, and Ombudsman investigation. Moreover, the giving of reasons promotes public acceptance of the legitimacy of administrative action; failure to give reasons leaves the , administration open to suspicion of arbitrariness and unfairness. I have developed the following criteria for assessing the adequacy and appropriateness of reasons: a. Whether the citizen's concerns are addressed directly and completely; b. Whether assertions of fact are supported by appropriate sources or documentation; c. Whether statements of law are supported by statutory or judicial authority; d. Whether the reasons plainly state the rule upon which the decision proceeds and whether the rule as applied to the facts logically produces the decision reached; e. Whether the reasons are comprehensible to the recipient; and f. Whether the reasons are consistent with reasons given in other cases dealing with the same or similar issues. Negligent Negligence in administration may be defined as failure to exercise proper care or attention in the performance of a public duty, This is not identical with judicial concepts of negligence. The Ombudsman may expect a level of care not currently enforceable in the courts. I may find there has been negligence, for example, where a decisionmaker fails to advise a citizen of his appeal rights concerning the decision, or where a public servant gives out wrong information relating to procedures for pursuing a claim or entitlement. Acted Improperly This phrase implies an intention to bring about adverse consequences, or a reckless disregard for adverse consequences which the authority ought to have known would arise from this act. It is closely related to acting for an "improper purpose". An example would be using access to confidential information in order to embarrass or otherwise adversely affect the person about whom the information was kept. Unreasonable Delay Delay is often inherent in the decision-making process. Whether delay is unreasonable or not will depend upon the particular circumstances of each case. It is difficult to lay down fixed rules. However, I have found unreasonable delay in the following situations: where a member of a1 appeal 5 Iw. az Reprinted with permission—The Toronto Star Syndicate. board had left his employment with the provincial government after a hearing and one year late efforts had been made by the authority to obtain his signature on the order that was made by the panel. I n my 1980 Annual Report (p. 46) I also said this about unreasonable delay: 7 believe that a delay might be considered unreasonable whenever service to a member of the public Is postponed improperly, and unnecessarily, or for some irrelevant reason. Hence, lengthy delays caused by a shortage of staff, administrative reorgan ization, or policy revision are unreasonable. If govemmeAltent requires that an indivWai seek its approval in particular circuit)' stances, it must ensure that sufficieime- sources are allocated to administer Wch procedures expeditiously. If MinistriesWm to reorganize their personnel, they must ensure that such reorganization does nowh- necessarily impede service to the public. And, if policies are to be reexamined am revised, such changes should be made quickly, or alternatively, the previous rafficj ought to remain in effect until replaced^ B. ESTABLISHING THE OMBUDSMAN'S EFFECTIVENESS The present report covers the second full year of operation of the Ombudsman, Last year I reported ". . . an extraordinary amount of goodwill and cooperation from ministry officials . . ." (p. 12). This year (1981) I had to work hard to maintain that cooperation and I must report several instances of failure to achieve administrative justice. Yet I believe, taking an overview, my office has increased its effectiveness for the public and increased its impact on the public service over that achieved in 1980. More complaints reached my office and more problems were attended to during 1981. While we must work hard, frequently in the face of something less than enthusiastic support, to convince officials to change procedures, practices and decisions, our results as reported in Part II to IV of this Report I believe demonstrate not only continuing out increased effectiveness. I have pointed out in my 1980 Annual Report (p. 12) that in order to be effective, I must look beyond individual errors and seek changes in procedures, practices and regulations that repeatedly generate errors and injustice. Such general improvements help the public more efficiently b} removing ongoing causes of friction or annoyance and also help public authorities to improve theii own efficiency and effectiveness. I have main tained this goal in 1981 as shown in Part III and W of this Report, even though I have to expend i great deal more effort and persuasion to get authorities to accept the more far-reaching changes Authorities must, of course, look at all aspects o changes I seek, including costs. While my initiation of such changes is originally motivated by the desire to get administrative justice I will also take other considerations, such as cost and efficiency into account. After all, inefficiency is also aformo injustice. As Ombudsman I must rely mostly on moral sua sion to achieve administrative justice for complai nants. It is inherent in this that in order to bs effective the Ombudsman must be prepared t< live up to those same standards of conductsppui ated for the public service in the Administrate Justice Code. I do, for example, risk my moral right to cnticizi officials for unreasonable delay if my own orgam nis fraught with unreasonable delay in hand- |he public's complaints. To be sure, there are i's explanations for delays, but the public and als might easily and with justification think of Kplanations as excuses. Similarly, as I de- lypiat officials hear people affected by their Hpns I must be sure to hear out officials be- Igach conclusions critical of their conduct. In ■■believe that I as Ombudsman must set an pie in living up to the code of administrative !ss in order to be effective in achieving ad- Ifative justice for the public. Irontroversial case and the "not rectified" jilaint are likely to draw more public attention Ithe quiet and efficient changes in proles that we bring about in cooperation with Hofficials. I will, though, highlight one such next. tively defined. This led to inconsistencies in classifying the allegations as substantiated, unsubstantiated with reservations, and unfounded. c. Some social workers forwarded to the Registry information only on the more serious child abuse complaints. It became clear that the interpretation of administrative procedures varied among the Ministry's district offices. d. And finally, the Registry did not have an administrative procedure for the removal of parents' names even when an allegation was positively identified as unfounded. Parents' names were retained on the Registry indefinitely, and parents were often not aware that their names were registered. ie Child Abuse Registry jfosl year and a half, I have received several Kints from parents, some referred to me by .C. Civil Liberties Association, about their Ity to have their names removed (expunged) ne Central Registry of Protection Complaints ■jk/linistry of Human Resources in Victoria. I parents thought it was unreasonable for the By to retain their names on the Registry be- • the Ministry had investigated the allega- Kchild abuse and had determined the alle- 3 were unfounded. B&itral Registry of Protection Complaints, Bnly called the Child Abuse Registry, is a Ii listing for child abuse allegations, inves- is reports, and abusers' names. Its purpose assist the Ministry in its difficult task of pro- ii powerless children from the abuses of It ■any person suspects child abuse or ne- j.ccording to the Family and Child Service ■at person must report the matter to the Bitendent of Child Welfare. Usually, the Su- Indent's representatives in the Ministry's C offices, or the social workers responding ■ministry's Zenith Help Line for Children, nchild abuse allegations. These are investi- enmediately, and the complaint and follow- ? irt must be sent to the Registry within 30 h my investigation, I found several major lis with the administration of the Registry: II Information stored on the Registry was II often incomplete. Also, it was not clear |l who had access to this sensitive and bj confidential information. 8 Some social workers had difficulty in I classifying child abuse investigations d because the categories were not effec- U ^ -— After long and careful investigation I brought my concerns about these problems to the Ministry's attention, and the Deputy Minister agreed to appoint a committee of administrative and field staff to review the administrative procedures associated with the Registry. As a result of the committee's work, the Ministry proposed excellent modifications to the administration of the Registry, including a mechanism for removal of names inappropriately placed on the Registry. Now, once a complaint of child abuse is investigated, if the allegation is substantiated, the Ministry will register the parents' names on the Registry. The Ministry will also notify the parents in writing of this, and outline the review procedure, in case the parents want to challenge the Ministry's classification of the child abuse investigation. In those cases where the allegation is unfounded, the parents' names will not be registered. And for those in-between cases, where the complaint is not substantiated but the social worker can identify some risk, the parents' names will be registered. Again, the Ministry will notify the parents in writing, and outline the review procedure. After three years, if the Ministry does not receive any subsequent allegations and determines that the child is not in need of protection, the Ministry will review the matter with a view to expunging the parents' names from the Registry. Besides these significant changes in administraj;' five procedures, the Ministry has hired a social worker to work for the Central Registry of Protection Complaints in Victoria. This social worker will be responsible for dealing directly with field staff about enquiries pertaining to child abuse allegations, for interpreting and implementing Registry policy, and for reviewing and recommending policy changes. 7 I am satisfied that these measures will improve the value of the Registry as an administrative mechanism for "tracking" children who are at risk, and for protecting these children from abuse or neglect. At the same time, I consider the Ministry's new procedures for expunction, written notification, and review will help protect the rights of adults, especially parents, accused of child abuse. While protecting the best interests of children, I think it is necessary for the Ministry to be administratively fair to parents. 2. "Not Rectified" With great regret I must introduce a new concept to my Annual Report: "Not Rectified" now appears in my accounts and my statistical tables. That requires an explanation. Occasionally it happens that an injustice identified by my investigation cannot be rectified. All help may come too late or it may not be possible to undo the damage done. I must then with regret, close that case. "Ministry remedy too late"—CS 81-078 illustrates such a case. Some substantiated complaints cannot be rectified. Financial compensation might offer a measure of relief. I have, however, experienced difficulties getting compensation recommendations accepted (discussed below under the heading "Ex gratia payments"). Because of these difficulties I have on a few occasions closed cases as "not rectified" rather than persisting with a futile recommendation for financial compensation. Examples can be found in the following complaint summaries: "Ministry and Land Commission"— CS 81-001, and "Liquor impropriety"—CS 81- 024. I am disturbed by abandoning a substantiated complaint but until the problem identified below (exgratia payments) has been resolved my hands are tied. Other substantiated complaints cannot be rectified, and financial compensation would not be appropriate. I have to close them simply as "not rectified". I brought one such case to the Assembly's attention in my 1980 Annual Report (pp. 49-51). Another case, also in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, is summarized in "Delaying inspection amounts to inaction"—CS 81 -105 of this Report. Finally there are five such cases with the Ministry of Education: as "Regulation on probationary teachers unfair"—CS 81-038 details, the only rectification possible would be a change in Regulations and even if those Regulations were changed they could not remedy these particular injustices retroactively. - I have to report several occasions in which I have been unable to persuade officials, Ministers and Cabinet to accept measures to rectify injustices 8 determined afterthorough investigations. In some of these cases I have not received a well-reasonec answer whose logic I could accept even thofm hold a different view. Where a case warrants it bring those injustices to the attention of the Leaf lative Assembly. But when that does not leadtc corrective action I must with regret close that aft as "not rectified". Garibaldi Perhaps the most important case investigSc during 1981 concerned the complaints I rece'tvec from residents and owners of property in ithe Garibaldi area north of Vancouver. What was «e a modest village is nowa virtual wasteland; alwsl all of the houses have been moved or destrllc and signs along the highway note the hazarc posed by the Barrier, a high rock cliff lying -fp kilometres to the east of Garibaldi. FollowirtMr extensive study, the Government decided to hat all further development of property in the areaanc to offer to purchase most existing private property The Ministry of Environment was authorized tc administer this program. Following the receipt of about 150 complaints from owners of property in the Garibaldi affi concluded that many of the terms of the MinisMQ' Environment's acquisition program were ut»t While on the one hand, the Ministry insisted tha' no one was required to leave the area, the ternjso' the Ministry's acquisition program were such tha people were effectively forced out. For example residents of the area were told that they mu|jsel their property to the Ministry by June 30,1981, oi they would never be permitted to sell their brop- erty to anyone without the approval of the Minjstei of Environment and the Minister of Municio^p fairs. There was no assurance that these ap provals would ever be given. I concluded that this was unjust and recom mended that the Ministry be willing to purchase the properties at any time in the future when the owner wished to leave the area. The Minister iej fused to accept this recommendation but eventually agreed to extend the deadline for sale to the Ministry until September 30,1981 when the Legislative Assembly considered my First Special Re port. Most people have now sold their properties to the Government. Another injustice concerned people who owner- unimproved and undeveloped property. While the development or sale of all property had been pro hibited, the Ministry refused to buy unimprovec property. Persons who had purchased a lot witt the intention of building a house were left holdinc property upon which they were not allowed tc build. Nor could they sell or lease it. I recom mended that the Ministry offer to purchase these properties. This recommendation was eventual,: accepted, as communicated by the Minister KB ■I iLegislative Assembly in June 1981 in re- Jise to my Special Report, lever, the Ministry refused to accept my re- ■Eiendation that the prices offered for proper- |De based upon fair market value at the time of Kale. Instead the Ministry arbitrarily selected 128,1980, as the date upon which the proper- li/ould be valued. Irequently, people who sold their property I did not receive the current market value for 6 property. Even worse, the Ministry refused to Ifinimproved properties until June 1981, yet led to pay any more than what those proper- liad been worth on May 28, 1980. Iirby subdivision was developed by the Minis- Rands, Parks and Housing to permit persons tad been displaced from the Garibaldi area Hquire a lot in the new subdivision. Yet again, Hpdivision was restricted to people who had Id improved properties. Recently I wrote to Hmistry of Environment and suggested that Ii the subdivision also be made available to Bs who had owned unimproved property in ualdi. I hope the Ministry will see fit to adopt Ijggestion because I think that this may recline of the injustices created when fair com- Hition was not paid for Garibaldi properties. I the Honourable Stephen Rogers, Minister ■Environment, announced the Government's ■isposition of my recommendations I was 33 close many of the complaints as rectified Ivory substantial number. 59 to be precise, a be closed as "not rectified". ligation ■hbudsman's jurisdiction was the subject of Blication to the Supreme Court of British Jbia for the first time in 1981. At issue was Hjr the Ombudsman has the authority to in- Bite a complaint against the British Colum- Hvelopment Corporation, The complainant Sieged that the Corporation had failed to Hi in good faith concerning possible par- resn in a development project. Hpreme Court ruled that the Ombudsman ti have jurisdiction because the particular aiplained of was not "a matter of administra- 1 thin the meaning of the Ombudsman Act. sjteal to the British Columbia Court of Appeal [liated, and a decision is expected in 1982. k so saw applications by the Ombudsman p|' authority to the Supreme Court of British |«>ia for declaratory orders concerning the jtsman's jurisdiction to investigate a com- fligainst a Royal Commission of Inquiry. <t number of the issues will be dealt with in K'.D.C. appeal, the applications have been [died pending a decision in that case. 4. Resources and Productivity Up to 1981 Treasury Board has authorized adequate staff resources for my office and had put forward in my Estimates to the Legislative Assembly adequate proposals for funding the Ombudsman office. I very much appreciated the willingness of the Honourable Hugh Curtis, Minister of Finance, to discuss the needs of my office openly and fairly and I believe he in turn appreciated my readiness to allow his staff full access to my office to assess those needs on their own. Nevertheless I have had to rely also on some additional labour from student interns to assist me with the timely investigation of the large and unexpected number of complaints. In the past year I have also found myself more frequently in the position of having to refuse investigations that were beyond my current resources. One case that troubled me is described below under the heading "Protection of Personal Information". The work of my office is very much subject to fluctuations in popular demand. As I cannot expect unlimited resources for the functions performed by my office a great deal of energy was spent in 1981 on increasing our efficiency and productivity. I was anxious to achieve such increased efficiency and productivity without serious loss in the quality of investigations. I have more frequently than in the past referred complainants to other available appeal channels and declined requests for investigations. My office is now also reaping the benefits of experience. My investigators specialize in a limited number of authorities. Their familiarity with their Ministries' policies, procedures and personnel greatly increases our efficient handling of complaints and incidentally also decreases our time demands on Ministries relative to the number of complaints investigated. I had not asked for a staff increase for fiscal 1981/82 (other than a change in the status of four auxiliary staff who became permanant). With complaints increasing by nearly 30 percent in 1981 I must state, however, that my resources are now severely taxed and it is beginning to show in the large number of complaints that were open at year end. I have requested a small staff increase for fiscal 1982/83. 5. Access to the Ombudsman for the Public I have continued a small number of regional visits in 1981, and asked my staff visiting specific areas on investigations to make themselves available to the public for interviews. In a small way these visits help in making British Columbians familiar with the Ombudsman and our proper jurisdiction. IL Reprinted courtesy Sharon Foster and The Times, Mackenzie. My office has started specialized efforts to assist two groups of citizens that appear to be in greater need of attention. One staff member specializes in the needs of senior citizens, another in those ol children and youths. Both groups appear offer much more dependent on public services and also appear more helpless than the average cit] izen in coping with red tape. 6. Reports and Public Statements j During 1981 I had occasion to submit three Special Reports to the Legislative Assembly in addi tion to my Annual Report. As will be readily apparent I will make such Special Reports to the Assembly when in my opinion the Govemrnen,fi response to a grievance is inadequate. Section 30 (2) of the Ombudsman Act also allows me, in the public interest, to comment publiclyor my functions or on specific cases. Occasionally; short release to the news media will be sufficien on matters that are of public concern, often pub licized by my complainant or by the authority involved. I have decided to release more length) statements in the form of Public Reports. Theffsl Public Report was released in October 1981 anc dealt with my lengthy and complex investigew of East Kootenay Range Issues. SPECIFIC ISSUES FOR THE ATTENTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY As in last year's Annual Report I feel again the need to draw a few specific issues to the attention of Members of the Legislative Assembly for their information. 1. Expropriation Procedures and Practices I have expressed my concern about existing expropriation procedures and practices in my 1980 Annual Report. Two of my three Special Reports in 1981 dealt with the consequences of what I can only describe as an inadequate legislative framework for expropriation action. To ensure greater procedural and substantive justice for those citizens whose property the government must take away by force of law for the common good, a statutory framework establishing basic and common standards, procedures and appeals would be welcomed by all those affected by expropriation. My Third Special Report dealt with a complaint I received from Roy and Maureen Cuthbert. The Cuthberts owned a half-acre of land which was expropriated by the British Columbia Harbours 10 Board in 1968 for purposes of the Roberts Bank Superport. In total, four thousand acres of prime farmland were expropriated. Most of this property is currently leased back to the original owners as farmland. The Cuthberts had, over the years, consistently refused to accept compensation for their Drop erty, and instead petitioned government for the return of their property. Their complaint was sub stantiated. Since the Harbours Board has never used the property and has no need for it in'lhe forseeable future, I recommended that it be returned to the Cuthberts. My Special Report was tabled in the Legislative Assembly shortly before the House adjournec last summer. Since then the Harbours Boarc reinstated arbitration proceedings against the Cuthberts, but in the early part of 1982, theap-j pointed arbitrator resigned his position for health reasons. The proceedings have remained ad I journed. I now renew my appeal to the Legislative! Assembly to resolve this long-standing grievance j, My complainants, Roy and Maureen Cuthbert anxiously await the Legislative Assembly- response. or ser complaint involving an expropriation by Iffistry of Transportation and Highways may r to the attention of the Legislative Assembly |i!2. In this case the Ministry expropriated a l)f-way through the complainant's property Ifeimple reason that her neighbour required la right-of-way in order to subdivide his prop- I concluded that the expropriation was done IKnproper purpose. I do not think that the \/ay Act authorizes the Ministry to use its ■ffiiation powers unless the expropriation is [/ in the public interest. ifcolumbia Hydro and the Ministry of Trans- lion and Highways probably require the most rom private owners of all government agen- m the Province. Ordinarily, property is pur- Id, rather than expropriated, by Hydro and Wens. I am concerned, however, that these tuition procedures are fair, that the property Is are made aware of their right to refuse to Ind that the threat of expropriation is not Id to stampede owners into selling under lions of duress. Sometimes people may not lirmed of their rights and instead are led to h that they must sell their property to the liment: the power of expropriation can too jibe used as a big stick. Vildlife Damage It necessary to draw to the attention of the Bative Assembly a matter which I feel re- Korrection, and on which I have been able He little progress. The problem is one of a Hi of complaints which I received from i.rs in the East Kootenays shortly after my cppened in the fall of 1979. fltEast Kootenays, as in many other areas of Btvince, officials of the various resource Min- ework cooperatively with one another and je various resource user groups to plan the Bpment of Crown and private lands so as to He and coordinate use for ranching, wildlife, mi and recreational needs. This cooperative Is called Coordinated Resource Manage- ralanning (CRMP) and in theory is an efficient Bach to the management of scarce reus in an area where there are competing pds for these resources. Bttice, however, there was a good deal of Htent among both resource users and re- ■ managers about the administration of the is I received complaints about wildlife/cattle Mt, about the rejection, cancellation and Bjof grazing permits, about crops damaged Hlife, about overgrowth of the range by tim- Utaut alienation of grazing ranges, and about ' y and unfair treatment of ranchers on the ■ government officials. Many of the com- *i reflected a fear on the part of ranchers that various government officials were combining forces in an effort to squeeze the ranching industry out of the East Kootenays and to preserve the area for wildlife. My staff and I have spent a great deal of time on these very complex issues. I provided the Ministries involved with a report of my preliminary findings in December 1980, and with a report of my final conclusions and recommendations in July 1981. Many of the problems are such that solutions will require a great deal of time to materialize. However, the response to my recommendations has generally been quite good. Already, Ministries have initiated a number of steps which will improve the situation over time. In October 1981 I released my first Public Report, in which I detailed the problems of the East Kootenay ranchers, and outlined the changes which had been made, or were being planned, to resolve these problems. On one of those problems, however, I am not satisfied with the progress that has been made. This is the issue of wildlife damage. I had received a number of complaints from ranchers who had suffered significant losses from elk and deer foraging on standing and stored crops and trampling both fences and crops. I was advised that this problem had become particularly acute in recent years, and many attributed the increase to the importation of elk from National Parks and the winter feeding of elk near ranches by the Ministry of Environment's Fish and Wildlife Branch. It appears that many of the elk and deer have become accustomed to consuming agricultural crops and have now developed "homesteading" patterns near the ranches rather than following their normal migratory patterns. There are certain wildlife management methods which can help to discourage homesteader elk, although it seems clear that in some cases management efforts alone may not be sufficient to control the problem. I recommended that the Ministry of Environment attempt to improve the situation through increased and improved management efforts, or through a program of financial assistance for affected ranchers, or through a combination of the two approaches. The Ministry of Environment's response has been one of general agreement with respect to management efforts, and considerable disagreement with respect to a compensation program. The Ministry has undertaken an internal review in an effort to quantify the damage caused by wildlife throughout the Province; that review recommends against a compensation program. Environment officials have also had some discussion of the matter with officials of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and as a result a document has been prepared for submission to Cabinet on the matter. However, 21/2 years after I received the initial complaints, I see little evidence of any concrete action 11 on this matter. If there have been any increases or improvements in management efforts, they do not appear to be effective, for I have been receiving reports of increased numbers of elk and deer foraging on an increasing number of East Kootenay ranches. I have received similar complaints from Vancouver Island. Recently, the owner of an East Kootenay ranch, Diversified Holdings, initiated legal action against the Ministry of Environment because of damage caused by elk. The Wildlife Act includes a clause which states that no right of compensation exists against the Crown for property damage caused by wildlife. In deciding the case, Mr. Justice Wallace found: "With considerable sympathy for his position and with some regret, I find there is no basis in law to award compensation." (p. 24) Mr. Justice Wallace alsi ated: "In the interest of developing the range lands for the cooperative use of wildlife and cattle, I would expect the Ministry would financially and otherwise, assist those ranchers particularly exposed to loss as a result of ministerial policy to conserve and manage the herd, so that one rancher would not be bearing the greater than average portion of the cost of the loss incurred as a result of such policy." (pp. 23-4) As these statements imply, there may not be a legal requirement under present legislation to award compensation for damage caused by wildlife, but there is a responsibility on the part of government to assist ranchers ". . . financially and otherwise .. ." when the burden of damage reaches disproportionate levels. I have no quarrel with the Ministry of Environment's goal of improving wildlife herds, for this is surely consistent with their mandate. It may even be that wildlife numbers could be increased without untoward effects on ranching operations, if proper wildlife management methods were followed. However, with the current management approach any increases or improvements in the herd are likely to have increasingly detrimental effects on ranching. I consider it imperative that the government recognize that a number of ranchers, very much against their will and very much to their financial detriment, are feeding the Crown's elk and deer very expensive and nutritious meals. Where the government cannot manage its elk and deer so as 0 discourage this foraging it is incumbent upon government to provide financial assistance to help ranchers protect their crops and to compensate for losses that could not be prevented. 1 recognize that there is resistance to a compensation program. There are fears that it would be too expensive, or too difficult to administer. However such programs are active in other 12 provinces, and can operate efficiently withoufHj due expense. I should note that the MinistH Agriculture and Food has recognized the proeR and has supported the need for a compensaw program. In my view, the situation is one in which one pro gram of government—the improvement of will! herds—is having a significantly detrimental eft on a selected number of ranchers, and I considei it unfair that these selected few should bear £ disproportionately heavy burden resulting Iffi- this government program. In some instancesfSe increasing depredation over recent years is biting ranching operations to the brink of finaffi disaster, and in such instances compensatitws the only measure which can bring relief at this point. I am recommending that a three-part program be used to improve the current situation: a. improved and intensified wildlife management techniques; b. a program of financial assistance to help ranchers protect their stored crops; and c. a compensation program to offset losses due to damage to standing crops. I The decision as to whether or not a Wildlife Damage Fund will be introduced in B.C. will ultimately be a political decision, made by elected representatives answerable to various intaSts and the electorate. But I want to ensure that Members of the Legislative Assembly responsib^or making that decision are aware of the background of the problem, and for that reason I would urge Members to give consideration to the points I have raised when this matter is decided. 3. Land Use Decisions and Land Disposal Practices Publications of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing on the allocation of Crown land assert to a receptive public that fifty percent of the Province is unreserved Crown land belonging to every present and future citizen of British Columbia, vffl|h will be managed and allocated for the indjpual and collective public benefit. However, where individual citizens have accepted the Ministr»vi- tation to seek out and apply for this land, or have attempted to influence the Ministry's decisioSpn sensitive land use decisions which are of concern to them, they have at times experienced frustration, bewilderment and disillusion. a. Land Disposition Practices The Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing has a primary role in the allocation of Crown land in British Columbia, and in 1981 received over5,000 new applications for land tenures of different types. The commodity dispensed by this Ministry ivaluable and finite resource. The decisions Vlinistry makes are often complex and have kind effects on the lives and aspirations of ;>iduals and groups. These decisions must Bfore be made in a manner that stands up to lie scrutiny. I have been presented with in- Ifsing evidence that administrative fairness is Hag in certain of the Ministry's land disposition Ines, procedures and practices. Ii major areas of concern have been identified l|y office. The first and most common corn- lit concerns the frequent changes in Ministry lies; second, the arbitrary and inconsistent Iner in which these policies are sometimes lamented; the third is the inadequacy of the Istry's commitment to providing appropriate jfianisms and opportunities for public input Irensitive land use decisions, at the request of Red groups and individuals. ■ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing em- Ijtwo different systems of disposing of Crown ^Disposition may be made either as a result of Banned marketing initiated by the Ministry or sa favourable adjudication of an ad hoc ap- Bon for a parcel of Crown land sought out and Ried by the applicant. Increasingly, prob- Biave become apparent with respect to the rand, traditional method of disposition, as a ■ of complaints from would-be landowners, ■opponents or competitors. Bof these complaints allege unfairness in •6 fie Ministry decisions and/or the method of Kition chosen for a parcel of Crown land, aa an ad hoc land application has received a ■rable adjudication. Investigation of a num- plf complaints has demonstrated that these plsions are not always manifestly just or wstent. Application decisions are normally made by BjRegional Directors in the Ministry's Regional l^wions Division, although an appeal is avail- pito a central Ministry committee in Victoria ■ladvisesthe Minister. Legislation governing apposition of Crown land is very broadly phra- Heaving a great deal of discretion to the ad- pftators in formulating and implementing pol- MBvlinistry policies, land application pro- bstes and disposition methods are centrally BBshed but applied by Regional and District plls to individual cases. nji policies are frequently revised. Inconsis- i*s between decisions are then explained as Unavoidable consequence of such policy l)es. I am sure such rationalizations appear Tilintly reasonable to officials but the public jiajjup confused, angry, disillusioned and sus- |c|s. The rules for Crown land disposal ought 11 clear, ought to follow publicly acceptable (loles and ought to be applied equitably and consistently. Otherwise the Ministry fails in its public trust. In adjudicating an ad hoc land application, several parallel processes must take place. Referral approvals must be obtained from other agencies, a status clearance must be obtained and a field examination must be carried out before a land application can be approved. The status clearance obtained by the Ministry contains information on any claims, reserves, or previous applications over the land. Criteria used in arriving at a method of disposition have included whether the land had previously been held under reserve; whether there was considerable public interest in acquiring land in the area; or if there had been previously disallowed applications. However, there do not appear to be any consistently applied guidelines in this area. The following individual cases illustrate the problem: i. An unsuccessful applicant for Crown land was advised that the lot which he had applied for would ultimately be made available by public competition and that he would be notified when arrangements were finalized. Similar letters of disallowance were sent to other applicants for lots in the same area. The applicant later learned, without being notified by the Ministry, that the lot had been committed to another individual without any public notice or competition. This decision was apparently based on a new Ministry policy that applications be considered on a first come, first served basis and be disposed of directly to the first qualifying applicant. Information with respect to previous applications and possible conflicts was available to the Ministry from a status clearance report, but did not seem to affect the Ministry's decision in this case. (For more details refer to "He lost a lot when they broke their promise"— CS 81-095 in this Report.) ii. A family man sought a homesite and small agricultural operation in the Queen Charlotte Islands and had advertised his intention to acquire the property, at the request of the Ministry. His application was disallowed at the District level on the ground that the land was not arable. He appealed this decision to the Regional Director, who upheld the finding of non-arability and added that the land could not in any event be made available without a public competition, as it had been previously held under reserve. The complainant next appealed to the Land Application Appeal Committee, which found in his favour on the question of arability, but upheld the requirement of a public 13 competition. After further arguments presented by the complainant against the stipulation of a public competition, the Minister compromised by publishing a further advertisement and announcing the Ministry's intention to dispose of the property. Respondents who were able to establish to the satisfaction of the Ministry that they had previously expressed an interest in purchasing property in the vicinity were entitled to participate in a closed auction. The second advertisement was peculiar to this case: the only advertisement normally required is one of the applicant's intention to apply for a disposition of Crown land. Individuals responding to this new Ministry advertisement claimed that they had ignored the complainant's earlier advertisement in the belief that his application would be unsuccessful as their own previous efforts had been. (Complaint summary "Crown land:with elusive rules"—CS 81-093 below.) iii. On the understanding that their land application would be allowed if they met the requisite eligibility requirements and resolved outstanding conflicts, a couple had altered the size of their parcel and successfully persuaded several government agencies to whom the application had been referred to withdraw objections. They were later advised that the land could not in any event be disposed of without a public competition, because of a previous reserve. As a resolution to this complaint, the Ministry offered to give the complainants first choice of a lot within any subdivision that might ultimately be developed in the area by the Ministry. (For more details refer to complaint summary "Land is available—until you try to buy"—CS 81-094.) iv. In a recent case still under consideration by my office, the Ministry decided to invite two previously disallowed agricultural lease applicants who had long since abandoned their attempts to obtain a disposition of Crown land to participate in a closed competition with an individual who had tenaciously pursued and amended his various agricultural lease applications, until his proposed plan complied with all existing Ministry policies. This complainant maintained that his considerable effort was based upon his understanding that a favourable adjudication of his application would result in a direct disposition to him. My staff was able to confirm that land dispositions with respect to ad hoc applications are most frequently made in this manner. This case is also noteworthy in that a complaint in respect of the same intended disposition was recei',uu from another individual who had unsuccessfully applied for a residential disposition of part of the larger agricultural parcel.. My second complainant felt that he wasf- being unfairly excluded from participating in; the limited auction for the larger agricultpl E parcel. The Ministry's response to the problems created [ by conflicting claimants for agricultural land; in f May 1981, was to change its policy on certain! agricultural lease dispositions by eliminating the [ discretionary requirement for advertising or afc- tions and deciding to dispose of land directtfflp the first qualifying applicant. I have advisedffii Ministry of my serious concerns about the merifof this policy, both on general principles of public accountability in the disposition of public assets and with respect to its possible unfairness tojB viously disallowed applicants who had recefil Ministry promises and commitments and cft interested individuals. It would also appear Mi current investigations that the "first come.m served" method of agricultural lease disposjRi has not been consistently employed by the MS- try since its introduction. It is incumbent upon me as Ombudsman to emphasize the apparent lack of an equitable and consistent method of dealing with the disposition of land as a result of ad hoc applications. Ratiajal and fair criteria to determine the method of disposition of Crown land should be developed, made clear to all Ministry staff and to the public, and consistently applied. While the Ministry has often suggested or agreed to equitable resolutions in individual cases itcw view that underlying deficiencies and incogp- tencies remain, which are likely to generate further complaints. I hope that these recurring problems will be recognized and fully addressecffiy the Ministry soon. b. Public Involvement in Land Use Decisions The Ministry has broad powers to affect land use decisions in B.C. Groups and individual citizens invariably demand opportunities from Lands, Parks and Housing to present information and advice before land use decisions are fina®- The public essentially does not accept that the public interest is adequately served if only the land use applicant and the Ministry bureaucracy have input into the decision-making process. Individuals and groups are also likely to be deeply affected by such land use decisions and administrative fairness requires that they be heard, and heard before a decision has been made. Two lengthy and complex investigations on such issues are briefly summarized in "The battle oi Buckley Bay"—CS 81-091 and "One head top- 14 ■Ifrom many-headed Hydro"—CS 81-092 Iw. Hmber of issues have continued to emerge in ■plaints where affected or interested members lie public have demanded an opportunity to ■range the advisability of land use decisions e e by the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Hous- I One of the first problems which has been Bftntered by complainants is the failure of the ■stry to mandate public advertising of land use lications that may cause adverse effects to BSivironment, before authorization to com- e:e work on Crown land is granted. Com- lants have also objected to the difficulty they e experienced in obtaining full disclosure from Bft/linistry of relevant information and rumentation. I be safely predicted that if the Ministry does Bdopt adequate procedures to provide an Hive opportunity for the public to scrutinize Hpticize sensitive land use applications, com- ats that the Ministry is wrongly precluding or Ely restricting public participation in its deci- ■yiaking process can be expected to recur. r nforcement of Maintenance Orders is received several complaints affecting ini- Ibnly the policies and practices of the Ministry rlman Resources and the Workers' Compen- .th Board. Closer examination reveals that un- rting these agency-related problems is a Ber concern with the adequacy or rather the Bquacy of the Province's system for enforce- ai of maintenance orders. pis order individuals to pay certain sums of '.ii y to maintain their former spouses and chil- y The enforcement of these court orders is left Ik usual civil procedures. Information ob- n i by my office suggests that half or more of U orders are not or cannot be enforced for a Hy of reasons. The court system does not or Hi respond quickly to enforce orders that Hfallen in arrears. lie party, usually a woman, who must rely on .Ting regular payments to meet monthly ex- 3ss, the failure to enforce court orders quite H results in serious financial hardship. The avnment, in the form of the Ministry of Human rairces, often picks up the tab as the victim -!£ rely on social assistance to survive. The Wlting ex-spouse is allowed to scoff at the ■Band to unload his obligations onto the U cial taxpayer. wlincern is principally with what happens to plctim when she must rely on Human Re- Hs or Workers' Compensation to get by. The ■■ordered maintenance is usually not enough Women in this situation often receive income Mance benefits. Their hardship is com pounded by the present policy of the Ministry of Human Resources of refusing to prorate backpay- ment. If, for example, a woman receives maintenance payments of $100 per month and she receives that sum every month, present rules permit her to keep the $100 without deduction from her monthly income assistance benefits. Thus over a six-month period she would receive and keep $600 in maintenance payments on top of her income assistance benefits. If, however, the former spouse defaults for six months and then suddenly pays up the arrears as a lump sum of $600, the Ministry will deduct $500 from the woman's income benefits in that month, as it counts the $600 as income in that one month and does not make allowance for the woman's inability to control the regular flow of her maintenance order. The Workers' Compensation Board practices a similar policy. When a worker is injured or killed in an industrial accident the Board will only pay that worker's dependents those amounts of maintenance payments that the dependents actually received from the worker before the accident, instead of the full amount ordered by a court. If the worker was successful in evading his court-imposed responsibilities the Workers' Compensation Board, like the Ministry of Human Resources in the above case, ends up being the beneficiary of the irresponsible conduct of the former spouse and the beneficiary of our inadequate system of enforcing maintenance payments. Women and' children end up shortchanged. In both cases the respective authorities have agreed that there is a problem but, although each problem could be resolved by the authority agreeing to alter their policy on the consideration of maintenance (in the case of M.H.R. by prorating maintenance payments and in the case of W.C.B. by considering maintenance entitlement as the amount awarded by the courts) they have chosen not to do so. Rather, each has suggested that the problem lies in the inadequacies of the Ministry of the Attorney General's system of enforcing maintenance, not with their system of calculating maintenance. Ministry of Attorney General officials have run hot and cold on this issue. They alternate between assuring me that a resolution to the whole problem of maintenance enforcement is imminent and telling me that they are not pursuing the question at all, referring me back to M.H.R. and/orW.C.B. fora resolution. In essence, everyone seems willing to recognize the problem, but no one appears prepared to resolve it. This is simply not good enough. In rjm. view, a problem that raises the issue of unclear jurisdiction (a problem that tends to "fall through the cracks") should be considered the problem of all, not the problem of none. Identifying the prob- 15 lem is an empty gesture if such identification does not lead to resolution of the problem. This problem can be resolved. Both the Ministry of Human Resources and the Ministry of the Attorney General have studied the problem extensively and are fully aware of a range of approaches that have been implemented, both across Canada and in the United States, to address the problem. What is needed now is commitment to a resolution, not excuses for perpetuating the problem. The scope of the problem is enormous; thousands of women in this province are affected and hundreds of thousands of dollars are at stake. Which Ministry will take the lead in presenting a resolution? 5. Protection of Personal Information During 1981, a complaint was brought to my attention which I was not able to handle in a satisfactory manner. It involved a matter of privacy and unauthorized access to information held by a government agency. A young woman complained that the Medical Services Plan had released personal information about herself to a credit agency. She had received a collection notice six days after informing the Plan of her change of address. Several months later the complainant again received a collection notice, this time five days after the Plan was informed of a second change of address. The complainant alleged that the Plan personnel had released her change of address to a credit agency. I informed the Medical Services Commission about this complaint and the Chairman agreed to look into it immediately. He found, to his consternation, that address information pertaining to subscribers of the Plan could probably be obtained by unauthorized persons or agencies. He then circulated a memo to all staff, Medical Services Commission and Medical Services Plan, stating in part: "The Office of the Ombudsman has brought to the attention of the Medical Services Commission an instance in which it would appear highly probable that address information pertaining to a subscriber has somehow been obtained from the Plan's files." The Chairman went on to remind staff of the oath of secrecy sworn on entering the Public Service and of the extremely sensitive nature of the information contained in the Medical Services files. I appreci- te the forthrightness and speed with which the Chairman of the Medical Services Commission handled this matter. However, I was not yet completely satisfied that the problem was resolved, either in relation to this specific case or on the broader issue of privacy. On the specific complaint, the responses of the credit agencies were so immediate, that it sug- 16 Wl! gested to me that a member or members of the! Plan's staff might have been initiating release© personal information. If this were the case, a reminder of the oath of secrecy might not be suffi-1 cient to deter further abuses. I considered then, and I continue to believe, that allegations of violations of privacy interests on the part of government agencies are extremely fe- rious. Allegations of improper use of information would, if left unresolved, undermine the publf's confidence in the probity of our institutions and officials. Many government agencies collectM- tensive information on citizens. As I said in my Public Report No. 2: "Communications technologies have become very sophisticated further enhancing the opportunities for unauthorized and improper use of the information collected by the government about all of us."... "I feel a special responsibility to worlcmw government agencies to minimize thepof&n- tial for error or abuse and to check exiswg information practices to ensure that they do not conflict with generally accepted sodal values supporting the privacy interest of our citizenry" (p. 3). For these reasons, I decided to ask the MinisfKf Health if it would conduct an internal investigtwi into procedures and possible abuses relatirvBo the question of the confidentiality of the MedWal Services Plan and Medical Services CommisSh files. Unfortunately, the Ministry declined to undertake this internal investigation stating: "it is the position of the Medical Services Commission that all reasonable steps have been taken to prevent the possibility of leakage of confidential information from the Medical Sen/ices Plan files andthat sincetheisis no evidence of a recurrence of the alleged breach of confidentiality, no further adio^is required by the Medical Services Commission." Clearly, my option under the circumstances was to conduct my own investigation into the matter. I considered this possibility, as allegations of unauthorized release of personal information are serious and strike at the heart of many people's concerns about increasing loss of privacy.™ However, I had to decide to postpone such an investigation as, at that time, my staff were fully occupied on other investigations and I had insufficient financial resources to hire additional staff to conduct this investigation. I would like to emphasize, nonetheless, my continuing interest in the question of access to Medical Services Plan information and to state that may decide to investigate this matter further on my own initiative when I have the resources to do so. I Police Complaints 1981, I received and considered complaints p 66 people about municipal police officers members of the Royal Canadian Mounted be. In each case, I was required by the budsman Act to refer the complainant to the (plaint procedures set out in the Police Act. limy opinion that the complaint procedures in lp//ce/4cf are unsatisfactory in that they do not lure that complaints about the police are dealt Iftairly. Fairness in this case includes three If elements: efficiency, accuracy and objec- BProcedures which result in a decision which f:ts a person or persons must be efficient in Kie decision is made as quickly as accuracy ■objectivity permit. Accuracy simply means *the procedures should result in the correct igon being made in each case. Finally, objec- Hfrequires that observers of the process will le that all of the facts have been considered, I the parties have had a chance to be heard. rithat each of the parties' interests have been lerly weighed and considered. p not think that the procedures for resolving fens' complaints about the police as found in Hfc>//ce Act can be said to satisfy these ele- as of fairness. The Act requires that a person la grievance about either a municipal police ■table or a member of the R.C.M.P. first con- ;:he Chief Constable or the local R.C.M.P. Khment who will attempt to resolve the com- Hjinformally. This is fine; in complaints about tiirities over which I have jurisdiction, I have Kited my investigators to attempt to resolve Bmplaint informally in the early stages of an ■figation. This permits the authority to review i^reition and to resolve the complaint without pr investment of resources by my office. e ext stage in the police complaint process is [ie complainant to submit his complaint in t g to the Chief Constable of a municipal force ffi- Commissioner responsible for the R.C.M.P. ■tish Columbia. At this point the Police Act jres the responsible authority to "promptly" Bigate the complaint, and to inform the com- jiint of the results of the investigation. The drrity must also inform the complainant at the BB his right to request an inquiry. Bpceipt of the results of the police investiga- Hhe complainant may, in the case of com- B involving municipal police, request a pub- ltluiry by the municipal police board and such ■r uiry must be held. In the case of complaints rang the R.C.M.P, the complainant may re- di that the Attorney General order an inquiry. Hltorney General has ordered very few such pes. Last December, a decision of the Su- -■) Court of Canada concluded that the provi- Mipfthe Police Act, authorizing inquiries by the Police Commission into complaints about the R.C.M.P, were constitutionally invalid and were therefore without legal authority. There is therefore no current procedure for an investigation of a complaint concerning the R.C.M.P. by any agency other than the R.C.M.P. I have five basic concerns about this process, which I outline below: a. The procedures are complicated and perhaps unnecessarily so. For example, when a person requested (prior to the Supreme Court decision) that an inquiry be held into his complaint about the R.C.M.P., the Police Act required that he submit his request in writing to the R.C.M.P. Commissioner in Victoria. The R.C.M.P. Commissioner was then required to send the request to the Attorney General and to the B.C. Police Comis- sion. In practice, the Attorney General would then refer it to one of his staff lawyers for consideration. Following this, if the Attorney General decided to hold an inquiry, he could either ask the Commission to conduct the inquiry or he could designate a different committee to hold the inquiry. After this, the body chosen to conduct the inquiry had to send a notice to the complainant informing him of when the inquiry would beheld. I am at a loss to understand why all of this shuffling about of the request is necessary. One of the reasons the B.C. Police Commission was created was to deal with citizens' complaints; why not have the complainant send his request directly to the Police Commission? b. The process takes far too long. Each transfer of the complainant's request for an inquiry as outlined in the paragraph above can take months. Of greater concern, however, is that the formal investigation of complaints by the police can take many months. In one case which came to my attention in 1980, the R.C.M.P. spent 15 months completing an investigation; the actual investigation was completed within the first eight months; the remaining time was spent while R.C.M.P. headquarters in Victoria reviewed the file. c. No reasons are given to the complainant at the end of the formal police investigation. Rather a form letter is sent to the complainant which in most cases states as follows: "Pursuant to section 39 (4) of the Police Act, and the regulations made thereunder, this matter was fully investigated, and a decision was made to take no further action having regard to all the 17 circumstances of the case." Not only do I doubt that this complies with the requirement of the Police Act (that complainants be informed of the "results of the investigation"), but it is completely unsatisfactory. Complainants should have both the right to know the decision and the reasons for it, and especially where the complaint is found unjustified. d. The formal investigation should be conducted by an independent agency. Of course, where there are allegations of criminal conduct, the police may also wish to investigate, but this should not prevent or impede an investigation of the complaint by an independent agency. In suggesting that investigations should not be conducted by the police, I do not mean to impugn the integrity of the police officers who currently investigate citizens' complaints. However, it is a fact of human nature that members of any organization are disinclined to criticize the actions of other members of the same organization. This fact may result in investigations being less than thorough and unbiased, which they must be if the truth is to be found. Similarly, public confidence in the complaint procedures will be undermined unless the process itself not only is fair but is manifestly seen to be fair. e. Under the current procedures, in which the police are required to investigate themselves, sometimes the complainant's allegations find their way into the hands of police constables being complained about. In one case, the police constables threatened to sue the complainants for libel if the allegations were not withdrawn. For details see complaint summary CS 81-009 below. Obviously, people will be discouraged from complaining if they feel that their complaints may result in legal action against them. This, then, is another reason why complaints should be made to an independent agency that should be required to keep all such allegations confidential except to the extent necessary to conduct an investigation. In making these comments I am not suggesting lat I, as Ombudsman, am anxious to be given the authority to investigate complaints about the police. These complaints are typically difficult to investigate in that they frequently involve incidents which are not documented, but rather depend upon the reliability and credibility of witnesses to the incident. Nevertheless, persons with grievances about the police should be able to have 18 their complaints thoroughly and expeditiousjM vestigated by an unbiased agency, to have a fair and reasoned decision made on the validity of their complaints, and to be informed of the decision and the reasons for it. Where such complBi) are found justified, complainants have the right to expect that corrective action will be taken.B It seems to-me that the current police comp-™ procedure as outlined above does not assuBI that investigations will be handled expeditinwl or that the correct decision will be made in each case. Neither do these procedures strike meal ensuring that all of the relevant facts will beW covered, and that a fair and proper decisioi^B be made in each case. In short, they do not meet our expectations of fairness. 7. Ex gratia payments A problem which arose early on in my operatw continues to cause trouble to me and complainants. It involves the payments of funds by the government in cases where I recommend that compensation be paid. I have found a numb^B complaints substantiated in which the only resH- tion is the payment of money to the complaii™. In some instances, compensation has been isR However, in a number of cases, even thouglMe Ministries involved may be in agreement with my conclusion that the complaint is substantias they have not paid compensation because tney argue that they do not have "statutory authoritap make such payments. Where such payments have been made in the past they were callelpx gratia payments. The Ministries point tome' Financial Administration Act which states th™o money shall be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund without the authority of an appropriation. I cannot, of course, recommend that Minisros breach the law. There are a number of mechanisms through which a person who has suffered loss because of bureaucratic error may receive compensation^ claimant may sue the government under the provisions of the Crown Proceeding Act and, if successful, may be awarded damages by the cc-Ws. He may make a claim against the Crown andlhe Attorney General may settle the claim pursualto Section 14 of the Crown Proceeding Act iffie Attorney General is of the opinion that, if pursued in court, the claim could result in judgement against the Crown and if he considers it to be in the public interest to settle the claim. There is also a provision for special warrants by Order in Council when the Legislature is nip Session, authorizing unforeseen expenditures required for the public good. I do not make useot such a recommendation lightly because it i&p- portant to retain legislative control over spending. My suggestion to utilize this procedure in some cases has met with little success. There is a|pa lision in appropriate situations for remission of Is, fees, penalties and the like under the mncial Administration Act to minimize public Invenience, injustice or great hardship. If these mechanisms have serious limitations at-will not assist in resolving many of the com- e ts I find substantiated. One encouraging de- Ijment has been the proclamation of Section r the Financial Administration Act which al- a person who received public money er- busly through no fault of his own to argue in a : of law his right to retain the money. I appreci- Hlhe opportunity to express my views to the liter of Finance on this provision (which had I recommended by the B.C. Law Reform [mission) prior to its being proposed to the nmbly for consideration. leve the Legislature intended in Section 22 (2) I the Ombudsman Act that I have the authority lake recommendations for compensation in I'to resolve a complaint, and I had hoped that ■Bvernment would respond to such recom- Mations. As the government has taken the Ion that ex gratia payments are contrary to II propose the following resolutions for «tideration: ia. Amendment to the Financial Administra- Ition Act allowing for ex gratia payments on recommendation of the Ombudsman, or _d. An appropriation provision under the Supply Act giving the Minister of Finance a vote designated for ex gratia payments. The Supply Act has the force of law and a vote approved pursuant to the Supply Act would be sufficient authority for an ex gratia payment. The problem of ex gratia payments has also arisen with respect to interest payments. For example, if the government owes money to a citizen and does not pay for a considerable length of time or if the government retains funds of a citizen when it has no statutory right to do so, I believe the money should be returned with interest. The government can legally make interest payments in very limited circumstances where an Act or Regulation allows it. But even in circumstances where it can be shown that the government invested a citizen's funds and reaped the benefit of interest, the government will not pay interest except with explicit statutory authority. The wish to stick closely to statutory authorization is laudable but members of the public always end up being shortchanged. One of my complainants paid $435 to the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing on the request of a Ministry official. This money represented the first rent payment on Crown land she had applied for and wished to lease. She was later notified that the land was not available. She then asked for her $435 back, with interest, and after receiving no response contacted my office. Afterbeing notified of the complaint, the Ministry quickly issued a cheque for $435 but refused the payment of interest as "there is no legal authority for us to pay her interest". The Ministry had the complainant's money from May 1978 to February 1981. It is likely that the funds were taken in as part of the consolidated revenue and invested. I do not see the fairness of the government's position in this matter. If there is a statutory impediment preventing payment, it should be overcome. The Legislative Assembly should be asked to consider appropriate changes. 19 PART II COMPLAINTS: THE WORK OF THE OMBUDSMAN OFFICE IN 1981 COMPLAINANTS AND COMPLAINTS Bling on my office's work in 1981 I will follow pe format as in my 1980 Report. Tables with d statistical information are presented sep- ' in Part VI. pre figures that show the overall workload of Bice in terms of active and closed aints. SO complaints carried into 1981* 963 omplaints received in 1981 4,935 Etive complaints in 1981 . 5,898 pints closed in 1981 . 4,765 Biints still under investigation at I end 1,133 11980 Report records 870 complaints under investigation at M Another 93 complaint files were opened when it became S' as some ol the 870 complainants had more than one sepa- sfjlistinct complaint 1981 my office received 4,935 new com- jthat represents 411 complaints per month 28 percent increase over 1980 when I re- 3,840 complaints per year or 320 per J In addition my office responded to some 'lier requests for which no file was opened, bSiich are not included in the above total of 'Complaints. The results reported in the statistical tables are based on all cases closed in 1981. A total of 4,765 complaints were investigated or otherwise disposed of during 1981. Fewer non-jurisdictional complaints were closed in 1981 than before: 2,008 as opposed to 2,309 in 1979/80. Relatively speaking this change is even more significant: the share of non-jurisdictional case closings went down from 55 percent in 1980 to 42 percent in 1981 and, of course jurisdictional closings increased in proportion: now 2,757 complaints or 58 percent of all closed cases are within jurisdiction, compared to 45 percent in 1979/80. It seems that the public now has a better appreciation of what I as Ombudsman can investigate. Complaints Closed by Jurisdiction and Year 1979/80 (15 months) 1981 (12 months) Within Jurisdiction Outside Jurisdiction Total. ..^3 _... Within Jurisdiction Outside Jurisdiction.. Total —I Number Closed 1,888 2,309 4,197 2,757 2,008 4,765 Percent 45 55 100 58 42 100 Jurisdictional complaints, of course, require considerably more time and attention. The 46 percent increase in jurisdictional case closings (an increase from 1,888 (1980) to 2,757 (1981) represents a major quantitative and qualitative improvement in the work of my office. 21 Despite all the effort and productivity increases my office was not able to stay completely ahead of complaints. There are now almost 20 percent more open files in the office at any time, and, of course, registered at the end of the year compared to 1980. I must view this increase in open files and ongoing investigations with serious concern. This situation has several undesirable consequences: 1. The time it takes to complete the investigation of a complaint is likely to be longer when an investigator has to divide his time among 80 complainants compared to 64 previously. 2. More time is wasted when an investigator juggles an impossible caseload (through activities like explaining delays to impatient complainants). A case overload generates it own inefficiencies. 3. My office may not have the time to analyze the root causes of complaints. In other words we risk being or becoming less than thorough, and superficial. Being aware of the potential problems that are generated by a work overload my staff and I make special efforts to avoid becoming "bureaucratic" ourselves. We have, for example, cut down on our own red tape by persuading Ministries and other agencies of government to accept telephone notification of investigations instead of formal written notification. We need to be more inventive yet in 1982. B. JURISDICTIONAL COMPLAINTS As in 1980 we found again that a large proportion of complaints do not need to be fully investigated to the point where a finding on the merits of the complaint is made. Some 1,220 complaints or 44 percent of all jurisdictional complaints were either not investigated or an investigation was discontinued before a conclusion was reached. Table 7 gives a breakdown of the reasons for discontinua tion. Of the remaining 1,537 jurisdictional cm plaints 855 complaints (55.6 percent) were substantiated and/or warranted a correction of ? decision, practice or procedure, although in 74o these cases rectification was not possible oB fused. In 682 cases or 44 percent of the S investigated complaints I found no substancScB the complaint and no action on the part of the authorities was required. These figures are mk close to my findings in 1980 as shown in the summary of results below. Jurisdictional Complaint Dispositions | Discontinued 1979 Number 864 /80 Percent 45.8 1981 Number 1,220 Percent 44.3 Not Not Sub- Resolved Rectified Rectified stanttated 506 59 0 459 26.8 3.1 0' 24.3 601 180 74 682 21.8 6.5 2.7 24.7 j Totals 1,88! 10C 2.75. tot NON-JURISDICTIONAL COMPLAINTS Tables 4 and 5 show that 70 percent of people with non-jurisdictional complaints receivSal least some basic assistance from my officeJBgu- allyto put them on the right track in pursuingjp complaint with appropriate helping agetSs. Some 18 percent of those with non-jurisditMal complaints were assisted in a more detailed manner as warranted by the circumstances. Depending on the urgency of the matter or the helpjjss- ness and desperation of the complainant my stall intervened to facilitate a resolution of the complaint. A great deal of this help was possible be-| cause of my staff's accumulated experience and could be offered fairly efficiently thus freeing'fore staff time for work on jurisdictional complaints. It remains an important principle of operation in my office that no citizen in need of help is turned away merely because his complaint is non jurisdictional. JUST RU, CUT THIS FfcJPW IN TKIPH<54T0 AW? I'UUT4I<& ITTcC? THis- czmwnr&e- <4ND L6T YOU KHOW IN THpgaS W156SKS THE WIZARD OF ID by permission of Johnny Hart and Field Enterprises, Inc. 22 rectified complaints (546) only my individual com- IMPACT plainant was affected by the change in decision, ii>irnv k^ jn 30 percent 0f a|| reso|vec( ancj rectified complaints (that is 235 cases) some change in tjain goal must always be to resolve individual practices or procedures was warranted and plaints where that is warranted by the merits agreed to by the authorities. Table 7 shows a at complaint. In 70 percent of resolved and breakdown. 23 COMMENTS ON MINISTRIES AND COMPLAINT SUMMARIES MINISTRIES MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD Eied, withdrawn, discontinued ... 7 tied: corrected during investigation 3 aiantiated: corrected after recommend. 18 ■antiated but not rectified 1 pibstantiated _4 IlOSED—TOTAL 33 ■er of cases open Dec. 31, 1981 H ■rge number of substantiated complaints in BBistry can be explained by the fact that 21 Bwere received concerning raw milk policy. ■ complaints are summarized below. Mmistry's assistance and cooperation in my K investigation of the East Kootenay range ■must also be acknowledged. I found Minis- Hsonnel in the field and at headquarters in la most helpful (see Public Report No. 1). 501 ry and Land Commission an complained to me because she felt that d been discriminated against in her efforts employment with the Agricultural Land Commission. Referred through the Public Service Commission, she applied for a position as an Office Assistant with the Commission. She was interviewed, and a job offer was made by the Agricultural Land Commission. Three days later, the Public Service Commission withdrew the job offer. The complainant felt that she might have been discriminated against for political reasons. After I concluded my investigation, it appeared that the complainant's suspicions of political interference were unfounded. Instead, the following had happened. An Office Assistant had resigned from the Agricultural Land Commission. The Commission, at this point, decided that it wanted to restructure its clerical workload. The Commission wrote a new job description for the vacant position and wanted to fill the vacancy with a person who had a good background in agriculture; typing skills were less important. The Agricultural Land Commission phoned the Public Service Commission, attempting to fill the vacancy on the basis of the new job duties. Subsequently, my complainant, a woman who holds a degree in agriculture, was selected for the position. However, it appeared that the Agricultural Land Commission was closely tied to the administration of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. The Ministry Personnel Office was un- 25 Reprinted with permission—The Toronto Star Syndicate. willing to appoint the complainant to the position because her typing skills were weak. The Ministry was unaware of the new job duties and made its decision on the basis of an old job description. The Ministry Personnel Office insisted that new interviews be held, and a different candidate with better typing skills was selected for the position. My office was unable to be of help to the complainant: when my investigation was completed, another person had been appointed to the position; she, too, had applied in good faith, and her services were satisfactory. I could not see my way clear to recommending that her services be terminated so that the position might be freed for the complainant. However, a larger question arose: is the Agricultural Land Commission an independent body and as such responsible for its own personnel decisions? Or is the Agricultural Land Commission merely a Branch of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, having to avail itself of personnel services provided by that Ministry? I met with the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Food to discuss this question and it was agreed that both the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and my office would obtain legal opinions on the matter. Both legal opinions arrived at the same conclusion; the Agricultural Land Commission, pursuant to the provisions of the Agricultural Land Commission Act, is a body independent from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. The Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Food wrote to me as follows: "I accept the fact that the A.L.C. has powers of autonomy that places almost all matters within their purview beyond administrative guidance or control of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Whether or not to pursue an administrative accommodation that better serves the taxpayers cannot be answered at this point in time. Clearly, the matter will be of interest to The Honourable The Minister of Agriculture and Food. I shall look to him for future direction in the matter." 26 I informed the Chairman of the AgriculturalH Commission of the contents of the legal opiffir had received and of the Deputy Minister's HI Because this jurisdictional question exceede the complaint I had originally received, I ditxn pursue the matter further. CS 81-002 A raw deal In late 1980 and early 1981 my office received 2 complaints, two from farmers and 19 frorrffie customers, about action taken by the MinisM Agriculture and Food to prevent further sales the public from raw milk dairy farms on VancjB) Island. The two dairy farms affected had bee selling raw milk to the public for many years witl out Ministry intervention. The issue considered by my office was whethi the Ministry was acting in an arbitrary or ir properly discriminatory manner with respect the enforcement of provincial regulations reapc ing the sale of raw milk. Investigation showed th under similar circumstances an exception tij istry policy to phase out all raw milk saleap been granted to a dairy farmer on one of the Gi Islands. The M.L.A. for the Gulf Islands had intf vened. As a result, the Gulf Islands farmer wi given a chance to state his case. Cabinet lat passed an Order in Council as permitted by Milk Industry Act, the farmer was able to continif his operation. I could find no reason for distinguishing betwef that case and the present one. I therefore advisi the Ministry of Agriculture and Food that a|p istrative fairness required that the complaOf farmers be given a hearing to present theiiffi ments to the Ministry. The Minister of Agriegjj and Food agreed to hear both complainagf provided all complainants with a thorough rep of my investigation. Though the farmers had t hearing fairness demanded, they did notsuage in persuading the Ministry that they should permitted to sell the raw milk. ill 11-003 be of hog disease unknown : '8, a hog farmer bought a number of breed ■including one known as 68K, from a farm j ted by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. ■gpected that this sow had introduced a dis- ipalled atrophic rhinitis to his herd. He com- I d to my office, seeking compensation for Bwisiderable losses he suffered. My inves- (1 n of this case was extensive and included ■ews with a veterinarian, officials of the Min- ■BAgriculture and Food, the herdsman of the ■fiment farm in question, and the complai- B|/I.L.A. One of my investigators travelled to Implainant's farm to get a better understand- c:he situation. Furthermore, we examined the ry's files. ■eared that the farmer had purchased 68K in ler 1978. The animal farrowed on December l>78. Shortly thereafter, the herd began to ^symptoms of atrophic rhinitis. hy 9, 1979, 68K was butchered. Her head , e subject of a report prepared by the vets' laboratory in Abbotsford on May 9, 1979. ■port states that". . .there is slight atrophy of ijht ventril turbinate." It concludes that it3re is no evidence of atrophic rhinitis in this Ben." Still, there was room for doubt. The ■atrophy of the right ventril turbinate may ■ have been an indication of atrophic rhi- nn the other hand, it may just as well have b aused by other factors. ||l 1979, the complainant butchered a piglet ui according to the complainant, was part of Sitter. The laboratory report on this piglet a hat".. .the appearance of the nares alone [■suggest a diagnosis of atrophic rhinitis." Bar, the report states that the piglet under aeration was three months old. 68K's pig- lithe date of the report, would not have been aionths but rather over four months old. i|:he piglet was part of 68K's litter, and even if dtrophic rhinitis, there would have still been Klusive evidence that the piglet contracted [isase from its mother. Apparently, 68K and i't r were housed in the same facilities as the Members of the herd. Any one of the other Iw could have been a carrier of atrophic ■land the source of the outbreak. bi30 informed by several sources that probate is no swine herd in the province that is not a; the carrier of atrophic rhinitis. Apparently, Ustablished herds tend to develop an inter- liliunity against the disease, introduction of l^imals into a herd quite often triggers an Ilk. rii/ investigation, I had to conclude that 68K || may not have been a carrier of atrophic |ti the outbreak of the disease in the herd II 1 may or may not have been attributable to the animal purchased from the Government farm. Based on the lack of any conclusive evidence, I found myself unable to make a finding or a recommendation regarding this complaint. CS 81-004 Happy ever pasture A rural resident of the Cariboo Regional District complained to my office that the ARDA (Agriculture and Rural Development Act) Branch of the Ministry had unreasonably denied him information regarding a community pasture. The complainant required this information in order to apply to the Agricultural Land Commission for a subdivision. He requested a cost benefit analysis of a community pasture and a breakdown of the development costs. Our investigation soon showed that the Branch did not have the type of cost benefit analysis requested. After many discussions with members of the ARDA Branch and staff members from the Agricultural Land Commission, the Director of ARDA agreed to write to the complainant. The letter provided what information ARDA did have on the development cost of the pasture and explained the Branch's involvement. As I stated in my annual report last year, citizens often request my assistance in gaining access to information. When I receive requests of this nature, I attempt to persuade officials to share information unless there are good reasons for withholding it, as I believe that many complaints to me would not be necessary if the complainant had had access to the information held by government officials. CS 81-005 Procedures beefed up A beef rancher was denied participation in the Farm Income Insurance Program. A prerequisite to receiving benefits from the Program was that the producer had to be a member in good standing of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. The complainant had missed the deadline for annual payment for membership fees, not having received his bill for the fees. I informed the rancher of the appeal mechanism provided under the Farm Income Insurance Act. The appeal board consists of a Ministry official* a representative of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and a chairman mutually agreed upon. The complainant had simply needed information about his right to appeal, and once he had this information he followed the procedure; no further investigation was needed. Providing information about a right to appeal is an important principle of administrative fairness. I 27 recommended to the Ministry that it change its procedure. The Ministry accepted my recommendation, so that now all individuals adversely affected by a decision under the insurance scheme are informed at the time of the decision of their right to appeal. CS 81-006 Dropping of fine fine with farmer An orchardist complained that he had not been aware of the existence of the Ministry's Farm Income Insurance Program. When he became aware and applied to participate, he was told he would be penalized for not having applied when he first became eligible. The Program is designed to compensate farmers when the market price for a crop is lower than it is possible to produce the crop for. We discussed the problem with Ministry officials who said it was possible that the complainant had thought the program was another name for a separate Crop Insurance Program that already covered his operation. This might have been the reason he had not applied. Because this was a reasonable mistake, the Ministry used its discretion to drop the penalty. The complainant was satisfied with the Ministry's resolution of the complaint. MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Declined, withdrawn, discontinued 157 Resolved: corrected during investigation 86 Substantiated: corrected after recommend. 9 Substantiated but not rectified 0 Not substantiated 106 CLOSED—TOTAL 358 Number of cases open Dec. 31,1981 113 The responsibilities of the Ministry of the Attorney General include corrections, providing services to courts and providing legal advice to the Government. The Ministry also administers the Film Classification Board, and regulates the registration of land in the province, the horse racing industry, and the licensing of private investigators and security employees. Complaints about the Ministry which my office investigated and closed in 1981 were more than two and one half times the 1980 figures. A substantial number of the complaints closed—approximately two-thirds—were with respect to provincial correctional institutions. The remaining 28 complaints mostly concerned court servicesBk the land registration system. A. Court and Support Services These two areas of the Ministry include court ad \ ministration, the Court Reporting Services, m\\ iffs' services, the Public Trustee, the Land fjtli Office and the Film Classification Board. 1 Complaints about court services ranged fromde! lays and difficulties in obtaining transcriptacf court proceedings, to criticism of sheriffs' acfe in serving process. Complaints involving the Lam Title Office often required extensive searcrS title documents and land surveys. My staff Ifd continue to receive good cooperation in infh| tigating these latter complaints. A large percentage of the complaints against thi| Public Trustee concern delays either in the ha|dl ling of the estates of persons who are deceased") incapable of managing their affairs, or in respond ing to requests for information on the part of thei heirs or relatives or the patients themselves. Ii "The Long Distance Solution" the Public Trusree'| failure to provide a timely response to written corr j munication cost the complainant long distanoj telephone charges. However, most complaiffic delay were resolved when the Public TrM& agreed to our proposals for action. There are ce tain built-in delays which cannot be avoided i estate matters, but simple requests for infcfie tion from me, patients or interested relatives am heirs, should be handled expeditiously. I Of the four complaints alleging improper manage! ment of an estate, one was substantiated. It was relatively minor matter and was rectified by th L payment of compensation to the complainan I have received no evidence which would suggei that the Public Trustee has persecuted the publii servant whose complaint was reported in myari nual report for 1980 (pp.27-28). B. Criminal Justice Division The guidelines set out in my last annual repo continue to be followed and the cooperation re ceived from the Criminal Justice Division remair high. C. Legal Services to the government I In my last annual report, I commented on th| attitude which the Civil Law Section had exhibite towards my investigations and requests foiwifc mation. Soon after I submitted my report irfl* 1981, efforts were made by the Ministry to im§ro\ matters. A senior staff counsel was assigned concentrate on overcoming the delays in ^|P I responses and to work with my office in resolvir I the major outstanding cases which stood stalemate. ■ggsult, personnel in the various branches of ■ffinistry were charged with the responsibility ■reiving and expediting communications con- ing investigations of complaints about the Htry. With the agreement of the Ministry, the jgdures used by my office for notifying the ■myof complaints were simplified. In addition, I dual solicitors were identified as responsible Iroediting requests by other Ministries of the ■jrnment for legal advice and consultation lespect to Ombudsman investigations involv- liose Ministries. It was also agreed that where I was no prejudice to the Crown or public Est. solicitor-client privilege could be waived lit any legal opinions prepared by Ministry of Rorney General solicitors for their client Minis could be released to my office. Bpneral level of responsiveness and coopera- ravithin the Ministry and among its solicitors leen greatly improved by these efforts. Sev- ibf the outstanding contentious cases from ■ have been resolved. However, a year later, I; remain in dispute. £ rrections Branch K)rrections Branch has responsibility for all sicial correctional institutions and programs, till as probation services, and family court t^rellors. The institutional services component ■ Branch's operation consists of the youth ■inment program (a short term custody pro- ifor juveniles) and adult facilities (maximum ffiedium security facilities and forestry camps ttiults whose sentences are less than two Bin length). Only a minimal number of com- t; that come to me have to do with the Correc- ■ranch's community-related programs such |i)bation services; most of the complaints nfrom persons in institutions. 81, my office received almost 300 complaints Hng the Corrections Branch. This is approx- t / five times the number received the pre- ll'ear, and suggests that inmates are becom- H)re aware of my office. rii) the year, my staff visited a number of HDial penal institutions in order to investigate ■Bints and discuss new complaints with in- 'e The largest number of complaints this year Ufrom inmates in two maximum security in- Uns: the Lower Mainland Regional Correc- raGentre and the Prince George Regional Cor- .« al Centre. My staff also visited the minimum Uy centres at Alouette River, Twin Maples \> ie Chilliwack Forest Camps. Ma complaint is received from an inmate, my klsp is to ascertain whether the inmate has feted to resolve the problem on a local level. pltxt step is to consider whether the issue it's the type of complaint that I might wish to Hi the Corrections Branch's internal inves tigative body, the Inspections and Standards Division. If such is the case, and the complainant agrees, I make such a referral and then monitor the result. Sometimes, however, the complainant may not wish the matter referred in this manner, and sometimes I may have reasons for proceeding with the complaint investigation directly. The level of cooperation I have received from the Corrections Branch in the last year has been high. I feel that good communication has been maintained between my office and the Branch largely through a number of formal and informal meetings with personnel from the Inspection and Standards Division. More than one quarter of the corrections complaints I received were resolved during the investigation stage or rectified after investigation. A number of general areas of concern resulting from individual complaints have been raised with the Corrections Branch and are outstanding at this report. I anticipate a resolution of these issues over the coming year. These include: the general standard of dental care within provincial penal institutions, the policy which governs the giving of reasons for an inmate transfer, the accessibility of a Justice of the Peace to inmates, the standard of natural justice required in the conduct of internal disciplinary panels, and the special needs of inmates who require protection from other inmates. Loffmark complaint—the latest word My last Annual Report provided details of my investigation of Mr. Ralph Loffmark's complaint against the Superannuation Commissioner, and the impasse reached with the Attorney General's Ministry on this matter. Reproduced below are excerpts from two letters which provide the latest word on this case It will be recalled that the problem arose as I was investigating allegations of political influence in the reduction of Mr. Loffmark's pension, and the Attorney General refused to permit one of his staff to answer my questions. In a letter to the Attorney General dated 18 December 1981,1 reiterated the background to the problem, and continued: "The past correspondence on this issue has covered many aspects, such as my authority to question Mr. Feme, whether formulating a legal opinion is an administrative procedure, and whether the posing of such questions impugns Mr. Feme's professional integrity. I felt, therefore, that I should make one more attempt to resolve the impasse by identify^ ing precisely the information I am seeking, lest the problem be caused by a misunderstanding over the significance of words used. "The administrative action I am investigating is the decision, taken by the office of the Superannuation Commissioner about May 29 —n THE WIZARD OF ID by permission of Johnny Mart and Field Enterprises, I 1979, to reduce the amount of Mr. Loffmark's pension. It is not the legal opinion given by Mr. Feme. This legal opinion, however, appears to have been the major factor in the decision taken by the Superannuation Commissioner or his staff, and it is conceivable that a person wishing to influence that decision might have attempted to do so indirectly, by bringing pressure to bear on Mr. Feme. Such pressure might have been in the form of a hint or subtle suggestion as to the result desired, or of a direct order or instruction; it might have come directly from a Member of the Legislative Assembly, or indirectly, from a Member's staff or party supporter. There are many possibilities and I shall not attempt to describe them all, though I hope that by now the essence of my interest will be clear. "I am seeking an unequivocal answer as to whether Mr. Feme, prior to his giving the Superannuation Branch a legal opinion on Mr. Loffmark's pension eligibility, received from any person a hint, suggestion or instruction, that could be construed as an attempt at 'political intervention'. "If such an attempt had been made, I would not propose to pursue the further question of whether Mr. Feme's legal opinion was influenced by such intervention. However, in investigating the administrative action I mentioned, it is relevant for me to know whether or not any attempt had been made to influence this action by either direct or indirect means. "I hope that this letter has clarified matters. I would appreciate your informing me whether I may expect to receive, before the end of the year, the information I seek from Mr. Feme. Since I reported on this matter to the Legislative Assembly through my Annual Report for 1980, I feel an obligation to inform the Assembly of any new developments, or lack of progress, in my 1981 report." It would be difficult for me to express more clearly the focus of my investigation, or to give greater 30 assurance that this focus was outside the soli«| client relationship (between Mr. Feme andfhi Superannuation Commissioner) that the Attdirie' General has been so anxious to protect and wpi| I did not propose to investigate. However, Bi| letter dated 22 January 1982, the Attorney fjjn eral responded: "The portion of the August 27th letter rel ceived by you from my staff dealing with thi Loffmark matter was written in accordance with my instructions. I have taken the time til review this whole matter again, and j|anf satisfied that the course of action setdlii Mr. Hughes' letter of August 27th, 19M fully meet the requirements of any pffle inquiry which you may undertake. "I suggest that you reconsider the matte and acknowledge the impropriety offfiu unwarranted attack on Mr. Feme anqjjiii Ministry. If on the other hand you inteWi persist on the present course of your irjft I will have no alternative but to challengi your right to do so." It should be explained that the letter of 27 Augus 1981, to which the Attorney General refersjsuc gests that if certain conditions are met Mr. Fern might "detail in writing to you the entire proces adopted by him in formulating the subject leg; opinion". Although this offer and its implicwi are surprising, unfortunately it is of no interst me whatsoever. I have no doubt that any intelger person who knows of this case must by now b well aware of the information I am seeking, ipd does not concern the adequacy of Mr. F||ie professional training or work habits. It waldf scribed in my last Annual Report, and it is setoi again in the third paragraph of the excerpt of m letter quoted above. I had hoped it would beery; tal-clear from my letter that Mr. Feme is inwjve because he may have relevant informatioiffin not because he stands accused of anything. At this point, it being obvious that the Attorne General and I will continue to move endlessly i unrelated dimensions in a sort of verbal Eschi print, I feel I must end my investigation with th further report to the Legislative Assembly (§tt> matter. The frustration I have felt with the Ministry. ■wises in this case compares with James Is ■jsm of John Donne's poetry: "Dr. Donne's ver- Igre like the peace of God; they pass all Bstanding." 1007 lease of the missing transcript Idividual complained that he could not obtain Jnscript of a trial in which he had been in- Ip. He needed the transcript in order to obtain 111 opinion on the possibility of a civil action Kg from the conduct of the trial. He had been s iy the Ministry that the transcript would not be Heed because the court reporter who had hi was no longer employed with the Ministry. Kntacted Ministry staff and were informed |ne shorthand notes taken by the reporter at rial were available but that the notes were Bpherable. The Ministry also had the tape Kings which the court reporter had routinely id of the court actions he reported. With the ■tance of a tape recording, the notes, it aed, could be transcribed. However, we were Eat staff at the local court registry had spent ■istening to these tapes but they could not n tape of the trial in question. m concerned that every effort be made to Be the transcript for the individual who had Hained to me. I was also concerned that ■situation be avoided in the future. In inves- Hg the complaint I learned that court report- HBritish Columbia is done by taking short- H notes, or by using a machine or tape 3'er. It is only with the first method of reporting ■ problem of deciphering the record made Raise. I also learned that in 1979 the Ministry l^Eablished a policy that shorthand notes had lain with the Ministry when a reporter left the However, the Ministry did not require that re- ||s taking shorthand notes make backup recordings. Itch the Ministry agreed to implement a pol- II supplying tapes to court reporters using :rand and to require that these tapes remain Hie Ministry. By this point the Ministry had Managed to contact the former court reporter Sfsk for his assistance in transcribing his HHe was willing to assist but he required that :>t of travelling to the local court registry be rad. It seemed at first the Ministry expected laliividual requesting the transcript to pay Miosis. The Ministry had taken the position Ms transcript had been requested an unreadily long period of time after the trial. Re- H for transcripts were usually for the purpose sg>3al and were, therefore, made within a few it; of the trial. I recognized that the passage of time might have made the production of the transcript more difficult. However, as was true in this case, a transcript could be required for purposes other than appeal. I felt that it was the Ministry's responsibility to ensure that court hearings are accurately reported and that transcripts are produced on request. It seemed reasonable to expect the Ministry to keep adequate records to do this. If the Ministry had had procedures sufficient to guarantee that transcripts could be produced when a particular court reporter was unavailable or unable to assist, the extra expense in this case would not have been necessary. I did not think the individual requesting the transcript should pay more than the normal fees for its production. After further negotiations, the Ministry agreed to cover the travel costs. At about that time, the Minister assigned a senior staff member to investigate the reasons for some other delays and difficulties which had forced me to make adverse comment, in my 1980 annual report, on the Ministry of the Attorney General. This staff member asked the local court registry to pack up all the tapes and notes made by the former reporter and to send them to Court Services headquarters in Victoria; there he could make one last search. When, after a week, the local court registry had not sent the tapes, the senior staffer flew to the local registry and, in a disturbingly short time, found the tape himself. The complainant got his transcript without cost. I was informed that the Ministry was as concerned as I was by the course of events. The Deputy Attorney General reviewed the matter and found no evidence of deliberate intent to mislead. He stated that the case did, however, reveal ineptitude on the part of managerial staff. I have been told that steps will be taken with respect to staff responsibility and managerial techniques to prevent such an incident's recurring. At that point I closed the case. However, in preparing for this annual report, I learned that the policy change implemented by Court Services was not what I had assumed had been agreed upon in March, 1981. The Deputy Attorney General had said that a "new policy will provide for tapes to be supplied to the Court Reporters to use as a backup to their notes and will be the property of Court Services to be left with the Court Services along with the shorthand notes". The policy circulated by Court Services merely stated that if a backup recording system is used by a court reporter, the tapes as well as the shorthand notes must remain with Court Services. I raised the issue again with the Deputy Attorney General. He has responded saying that the policy implemented was as he intended and was meant only to affect court reporters who choose to use a tape as a backup system. 31 The problem presented by this case was how could a transcript be produced if the court reporter is unavailable, the shorthand notes are indecipherable and backup tapes either don't exist or can't be found. It appears to me that the problem has not been fully addressed. Therefore, 1 may have to pursue the issue with the Ministry again in 1982. CS 81-008 Benches and battering rams A prisoner complained about the lack of amenities in the Victoria Courthouse cell used to hold individuals who are in custody, charged with offences and appearing in court. The cell, which holds from 10 to 20 people, had no chairs or benches and no cups, towels or toilet tissue. I was told by the Ministry that at one time the cell had benches and a table. Two years ago, however, there had been an incident in which the benches and table had been broken and used as battering rams. To prevent a repetition of the event, the furniture had not been replaced by the Ministry. In reviewing the matter during the course of my investigation the Ministry decided to have metal benches installed and to ensure that cups, toilet paper and towels be supplied as required. CS 81-009 Complaint against police Parents who had criticized the R.C.M.P. complained that their critical letter should never have found its way into the hands of the constables involved. Their letter, written to the Deputy Attorney General, had criticized R.C.M.P. handling of their son during an arrest, and the offended constables then demanded an apology. They threatened a libel suit if no apology came. The Attorney General had, I found, investigated, and although he concluded that neither his office nor the B.C. Police Commission was responsible for turning the letter over to the constables, procedures concerning critical letters were as a result changed. Under the new procedure, the local police detachment is given only a summary of the complaint. In my judgement this is appropriate. The complainant is protected, but the local detachment has the information needed to do the irst-stage investigation required by the Police Act. I Since the complainant had suffered no damage (no libel suit was launched) and the procedures had been tightened, I discontinued my investigation into this complaint. However, I remain concerned about one feature of the complaint; it took almost a year and a half to complete the investiga- 32 HjH tion called for under the Police Act. The Act does i not require speedy resolution of complaints. I rfjai I in the future recommend changes in the Pom\ Act. CS 81-010 Surveying the surveyors The complainants, owners of a 19-acre hobbri farm, had their property surveyed by a numbero! land surveyors. They wanted a correct plan filel a the Land Title Office as the latest filed plan was no correct. I discovered that the problem lay witiffht original survey plan which had been incorredtjpl that the simplest way of correcting this error was t< contact the original surveyor and have himrrffeil statutory declaration to that effect; this was done I and the plan in the Land Title Office was correfkecl to reflect the true boundaries of the complaitBj,! property. CS81-011 Land Title Office: a lawyer's lament A law firm complained that each time it conMteil the Land Title Office concerning registratirMjfi subdivision plan, it was told about extra reguire ments. Sometimes the requirements contradieteil each other. When the firm wrote to the responsibly registrar and to the Director of Land Titles, ai investigation was made. When I became invwecl I reviewed the investigation. The problem appeared to have arisen as ajpsu of a substantial increase in the number of sub division plans being presented to the Landiitlij Office. In order to deal with this problem, ine> perienced clerks were seconded from the general office and in some cases failed to note defects i applications; the applications were subsequentl rejected by more experienced staff. The repjgral had therefore instructed staff that hencefortwerj would be no preliminary inspection of plansRin1! that all plans would be dealt with once only by at experienced plan examiner. He further stated the| an applicant disagreeing with any requiremert should discuss his concerns with senior Lan) Title officials. I told the law firm that the Land Title Office afl peared to have dealt with the problem, but that B would investigate if there were similar problems i I the future. CS 81-012 Time's up A driver complained that he had been denied h right to appeal a traffic violation report becaus the court registry would not accept his notice i dispute initiating the appeal. The registry receive the notice after the appeal period had expire' The driver had mailed the notice on the last day I mm lime period. He argued that the delay was led by the post office and the notice of dis- Itshould be accepted. Ined that the limitation period is established Itw and that the appeal period is clearly Isd on the ticket given to a driver at the time of ■ffieged violation. I also learned that court Imes use the date on the postmark to deter- whether the notice was in time and that the _|ark in this case was not within the appeal id. I recognized that this was a reliable and ■Rive method of establishing the timeliness of lopeal and found the complaint not sub- Rated. 1-013 ll Claims and self help ■tail Claim Registry had refused to grant de- Ijudgment to a complainant, saying that [fr service of the summons had not been Hon the defendant company. The complai- nad served the summons by double regis- ? mail and receipt had been acknowledged. Her, it was the Registry's position that under Hivisions of the Small Claim Act, a plaintiff 3 not serve a summons, even by registered Band the summons should have been mailed Her the Sheriff's Office or the plaintiff's solici- 3ie complainant objected to this interpreta- Hd felt that it was unreasonable and contrary l^Belf-help spirit of Small Claim proceedings te should be obliged to retain a solicitor or tor the Sheriff's Office to mail the summons. ■judgment, this was correct. The restrictions ■ Small Claim Act on the service of a sum- ■ by a plaintiff appeared to relate only to Hal service and not to service by registered | Jl\ Ministry solicitor agreed with this position Hent a memo to the appropriate officials to ret the misapprehension, which appeared to Hi more than one Registry. Hmplainant had since obtained a court judg- Imor part of his claim, but he felt that he should llitled to the full amount which he would have l^red if default judgment had been granted. A at judgment may be set aside on the applica- H a defendant who appears to have a valid [l;e and provides an acceptable explanation Hng to file a defence. It was therefore impos- Ho speculate on what the outcome would Hgen. if default judgment had been entered I complainant. More while I was unable to get the equivalent ■ttault judgment for the complainant, I was ■establish that his interpretation of the Small pi; Act was correct; this interpretation will lat simpler and cheaper for future plaintiffs to p|3 Small Claim Registry system. CS 81-014 Sheriff rides shotgun A man called in distress over information he had just received from the local Sheriff's office. He had taken a Small Claims Action against a paving company in order to recover the costs of an inadequate driveway repair job. A judge had awarded him the claim, but later a Sheriff informed him that he would have to pay to have the paving company's assets, such as a vehicle, seized and stored. Since the man was on a fixed income, he did not have the money to do this. He was distressed to learn that he would have to pay more money to collect his award. I called the local Sheriff's office to discuss the problem. The Deputy Sheriff informed me that the man could claim the costs of seizure and storage in addition to his small claims award; however, the Deputy Sheriff cautioned that the assets might have liens against them and might therefore not be worth seizing. He said he would do a brief search of the company's assets and would advise the man about the procedures available to him for collecting his money. CS 81-015 The long distance solution The complainant, a Winnipeg resident, was the sole heir of his father who died in B.C. without a will. The Public Trustee, who was responsible for administering the estate, asked the complainant what should be done with his father's belongings, which included a television set and some tools. The complainant told the Public Trustee to send these items to him because of their sentimental value. Instead, by accident, these items were sold at auction and the proceeds added to the estate. The complainant spent more than $100 for long distance charges in trying unsuccessfully to get recompense and in objecting to certain fees charged by the Public Trustee. He then complained that it was unfair that he should pay for attempting to sort out a problem created by the Trustee. I found the complaint substantiated and recommended that the Public Trustee pay the complainant $100 as compensation for his loss of the estate items. I also found that the complainant's use of the long distance telephone to contact the Public Trustee was partly justified because of the Public Trustee's lack of a timely response to written communications. Where a complainant reasonably incurs expenses in an unsuccessful attempt to resolve his complaint on his own and the complaint is later substantiated either in whole or in part, the authority should reimburse the complainant in an amount reasonably attributable to 33 the authority's failure to resolve the complaint. I therefore recommended that the Public Trustee pay $50 as partial compensation for the complainant's telephone expenses. The Public Trustee agreed to my recommendations. CS 81-016 "Caligula" not banned in Boston ... or Vancouver The decision by the Film Classification Branch of the Ministry of the Attorney General to permit the showing of the controversial film "Caligula" resulted in public reaction consisting of the picketing of the theatre by concerned citizens, editorial comment, hot line show discussions, and eventually a complaint to the Ombudsman. Upon investigation of this complaint, I was impressed with the amount of research that went into the decision of the Branch to permit the showing. The Branch's staff followed the progress of the film through the United States, where, in a Boston court case, the film was ruled "not legally obscene". Branch staff conferred with their colleagues in Quebec, the first Canadian jurisdiction in which the film was shown, in order to ascertain both that film board's rationale for passing the film and the public's response to its showing in Quebec Several members of the Branch consulted with academics on the subject of pornography. They then attempted to relate the information they had collected to their perception of changing community standards. The Branch considered cutting some shocking sections, but concluded that cutting the film would remove the impact of the film maker's statement that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Instead, they required theatre managers to enclose a very strong warning in their advertisements. The Film Classification Branch kept a record of complaints and comments received concerning "Caligula". A telling comment came from one individual who stated that he did not intend to see the film but supported the right of those who were inclined to see it. In investigating this complaint against the Film Classification Branch, I was not attempting to set myself up as a "super-censor". I had to make certain that the process which led to the decision to allow the film to be shown was comprehensive and objective and gave fair consideration to all points of view. If the Film Classification Branch had not done its work in such a thorough fashion, it might have left itself open to my finding that the decision was arbitrary, and therefore subject to a recommendation by the Ombudsman. I concluded that the complaint was not substantiated. 34 CS 81-017 A duty to be fair: even in jails! An inmate of a Regional Correctional Centre rSl plained that the disciplinary panel of his institl|| used unfair procedures in investigating breatH] of the rules of conduct. He had been charged fitl fighting another inmate. He told me thatlfij charge was quite valid, but that the methoGjH proof were unfair. He had not been notified of thi charge within 24 hours. He had not been gm time to prepare his case for the disciplinary pane And the panel, instead of looking only at thelrc dent in question, had judged him guilty afterJSjr] sidering other infractions of the rules of conSe unrelated to the incident. My investigation showed that he was right, j that the prison in fact had rules that shouldffe ensured fairness in disciplinary heariffis However, the disciplinary hearing had follcWei old printed forms, which contributed to unsuitabli and unfair procedures. The Corrections Brand agreed with my findings, and Inspection^ Standards are now preparing a disciplinary pre cedures review, and new printed forms whicp/i serve to guide fairer hearings. In my opinion, both staff and future inmate^i benefit when hearings are held fairly, usingBn sistent procedures and improved forms. As for thi complainant, he was given an apology by th Director of the Institution. CS 81-018 Music raises inmate's spirit A young inmate complained that the CorreGjbn Branch had refused his request to have acassett brought into the institution. Inmates are permittei to have radios, but he wanted a cassette in ordej to listen to spiritual music. The request was refused for security reasons. Sv, curity in prisons requires that many objects ficl are harmless on the street be forbidden. Priso officials thought security might be endangered inmates could make tape recordings injrofj Since the inmate's request was, however, cwt play tapes and not to record them, securityfflEe not be endangered. A cassette player witlpt recording head was available in the prisorHP1 Director agreed to allow the inmate use of th player, interpreting security rules in the mostrei j sonable way possible. On the other hand another inmate complaint that he was not allowed to make a late night phor call to a radio station in order to request thi h favourite tune be played on the radio. I foundtr complaint unsubstantiated as the officeap acted reasonably in refusing the request. IP-019 win some, you lose some (mate had two problems, one related to his ■ of 138 days of earned remission built up Ig incarceration ("good time"), the second to ■tfdition of nearly four months to his sentence. Inmate had had his short-term parole reed. Under prison rules, if a parole is revoked, Id time" earned for previous good behaviour ■Bin most circumstances. However, some- 1 the revoking of parole is not the inmate's ■For example, if the inmate is granted a parole Kb special training and the training school I operating, the inmate is not at fault and id not lose "good time". My office and Inspec- Ind Standards both worked on the case and lleded in showing that this was not a situation s ch "good time" should be lost. I ly, an inmate is informed that if his parole is [3d he will lose "good time" credits. When this ae accepted short-term parole, he was lied a too-early release date. This error may 3 ed the inmate to believe that in accepting 'o he was not placing his "good time" in isrdy. The Parole Board decided on the basis Hiinistrative fairness to recredit the "good ■ Board later re-examined the process of ■ng short paroles, including the basis on ■ good time is lost if parole is revoked, and narified its rules. ■mate's second claim, that concerning the sfour months' sentence, was not substantiate inmate had been convicted of escape iieing unlawfully at large. The Corrections rh had the right to add four months to his Bice. ■020 le owns confiscated cash Bate complained that $20 was confiscated He was in segregation, and the amount was tidited to his institutional account. Bs are prohibited from having cash on their sis within the prison, so the inmate was in |H>n of existing standards. His money was ll;ated to be turned over to the Crown. The ie investigated was whether the prison offi- ~S ad the authority to confiscate such funds ■gently. A review of the relevant regulations MJ to the conclusion that they did not. [■ore recommended the return of the inmate's n on his release from the Correctional Centre, Hggested that the Corrections Branch make ■guidelines to handle incidents of this sort. CS 81-021 Chained to their error While an inmate was being transferred between prisons, his gold chains, which had been in the prison safe, disappeared. The inmate took the problem to Inspection and Standards. After seven months, he wrote to me, complaining that Inspection and Standards had not resolved the complaint. I discovered that Inspection and Standards had investigated, but that because the inmate had signed for his personal effects at the time of transfer and because of some inconsistencies in his account, had concluded that the Corrections Branch was not responsible for his chains. On examining their file I discovered that the form the inmate had signed referred only generally to the inmate's personal effects and did not prove the inmate had received the gold chains. I concluded that the available evidence supported the inmate in his claim not to have received the chains. As a result, Inspection and Standards made further inquiry and met with the inmate, who accepted a settlement of $1200 for the lost property. CS 81-022 Inmate buying time until court communications corrected An inmate was facing several penalties involving a choice of fines or prison terms. If prison terms were chosen, they could be served concurrently, and the inmate applied in the ordinary way to do so. Because of a communications breakdown between the Corrections Branch and the Courts, the permission to serve concurrent time arrived just prior to his release date and he was faced with a fine of $644.89 before he was allowed to leave. The problem came to my attention when a Correctional Centre guard asked me to help the inmate. I discovered that Inspection and Standards were already investigating. They recommended that the fine be refunded, solving the inmate's problem. An examination of communication procedures between Corrections and the Courts may prevent similar problems in future. CS 81-023 Director says pay; lost brogues reappear An inmate claimed that at the time of his admission to an institution, he had been the proud owner of an expensive pair of brogue shoes. Indeed, he had worn these shoes to a number of subsequent court appearances. However, as he was preparing to leave the institution for yet another court appearance, it was discovered that the shoes were missing. A nondescript pair was provided in their place. 35 When the inmate wrote my office, he said that he had complained about the loss of the shoes to the Inspection and Standards Division of the Corrections Branch and that nothing had been done. My office discovered that Inspection and Standards had investigated and placed the matter in the hands of the institution's Director. The Director agreed to provide a voucher for $55 to the inmate. Before a voucher was issued, however, the shoes belonging to the inmate were found. MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS Declined, withdrawn, discontinued Resolved: corrected during investigation Substantiated: corrected after recommend. Substantiated but not rectified Not substantiated CLOSED—TOTAL Number of cases open Dec. 31,1981. 119 52 3 2 36 212 71 luring 1981, my office dealt with 212 complaints' directed against the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs; 143 of these were against the Rentalsman. As last year, many of these complaints dealt with the difficulty of access to the Rentalsman's services: people can't get in touch with the Rentalsman, and his phones are always busy. 36 Other complaints are about the long delays com- plainants encounter when dealing with the Rentalsman. In landlord-tenant disputes, dejB are irritating and expensive. If immediate actiqH not taken, consequences often becomtH creasingly serious. The dilemma in this situations illustrated by the case "Justice delayed is jusjB denied"—CS 81-031. Unless the Rentalsman provides better actS and speedier service, landlords and tenantsflB have to resort to self-help. However, this is difficult because adequate information services are lacking, and because the Residential Tenancy 4Hs written in language that is difficult to understand; The Rentalsman has assured me that he is maft efforts to make his office more efficient. He 3w require more funds to accomplish this goal.| As was true last year, my working relationship with the Rentalsman is good. My office had 69 complaints against offir branches of the Ministry, namely Consumeiffif- fairs, Corporate Affairs, the Liquor Control™ Licensing Branch, and the Liquor Distribution Branch. Although there were some difficultiesffe cooperation I received from the MinistryHJs satisfactory. n 1977 CS 81-024 Liquor impropriety The complainant, a corporation, applied irj to the Liquor Control and Licensing Brancfc preclearance for a neighbourhood public house licence for a northern Vancouver Island community. The application was denied, and problems created by the denial were not cleared up until 1981. The company reapplied in February 1979. It took the Branch until April 14, 1979, to acknowledge the application, and until July 10,1979, to send an inspector to the community. The inspector mel with a number of individuals, including my com-j plainant's competitor; the applicant, my complainant, was not invited to the meeting. Subsequently, the Branch invited the comp||oi to apply for preclearance for a neighbour|So public house. The competitor, following this irgN tion, filed an application on August 1,1979. The complainant's application was denied on Octobei 16,1979. The competitor was ultimately grantee preclearance. The complainant then filed an appeal witflp Minister of Consumer & Corporate Affairs.j|i> appeal was heard by the Deputy Minister.Jp Deputy Minister came to the conclusion thaf.trc appeal should be allowed and that preclearjncf should be granted. However, one of the condjjp he imposed was that an independent survey k» held of the residents within half a mile of the pro ■' 1!d site for the neighbourhood public house, competitor, who had already been granted liearance, had not been required to hold such Hey. The complainant prepared for the survey I anally did not complete it. He alleged that | had been a campaign in the community ■hist him, and in any case he considered it ||ly that the local authorities would approve |for a second neighbourhood public house | small community. Investigating, I found the company's com- |was indeed substantiated. The procedures ll by the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch laling with the complainant's application had |(s that were unjust and improperly discrimi- |y; the Branch had acted improperly in in- |ng a prospective competitor of the complai- h application; it acted quite improperly in Ing the complainant's competitor to make an barton. In addition, there were unreasonable Is lomplainant now no longer wished to estab- Ipublic house, but rather wanted a licence to ■iquor in a recreational facility furnished with :s equipment. The complainant felt that a Kjm seating capacity of 65 was necessary to ■this venture viable. The Liquor Control and King Branch was not willing to approve the led seating capacity. mmmended that the Liquor Control and Li- Ing Branch either approve the requested li- Hor compensate the applicant for losses led as a consequence of delays and unfair mures used. The Branch did not accept ei- pcommendation. ; met with the Minister of Consumer & Corpo- Bfairs who undertook to review the issues Bally. The Minister's involvement led to a Hnstructive meeting between the complai- Hnd representatives of the Branch. The r h now agreed to approve the application to Hiquor in the recreational facility; this had bone of my recommendations. icunately, because of the present economic con affecting northern Vancouver Island Hnities and because of the high interest il! the complainant is no longer able to pro- Kyith his plans to establish a recreational SB 025 Hpry authority for wine policy? Bved a complaint about Liquor Control and •siing Branch requirements that all licensed 9 establishments carry a selection of British Hbia wines. Hing that I was not expressing an opinion on Hlsirability of such a policy, I asked the B|-i about its statutory basis. The Branch in formed me that it considered the issue a matter of policy, implying that "policy" was not a "matter of administration" and was therefore outside my jurisdiction. I informed the Branch that my jurisdiction can indeed include matters of policy, and that in any case the issue was one of administration; a public servant, the General Manager of the Branch, was enforcing a policy which, on the surface, appeared to lack statutory authorization. Further correspondence was exchanged between my office and the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The Ministry persisted in claiming that policy was outside my jurisdiction. The question became the subject of a discussion'; among Deputy Ministers. Side effects of this controversy began to be felt in other cases pending against various ministries. I felt that the time had come to have the limits of my jurisdiction clarified and confirmed by the Supreme Court of B.C. However, at this point the Ministry saw fit to provide me with the information I had requested. Its Director of Legal Services informed me that the Ministry was unable to determine exactly how this particular policy had originated. He drew my attention to certain sections of the Liquor Control and Licensing /Acfwhich, together with the scheme of the Act and the Liquor Distribution Act, supposedly provided statutory authority for the policy in question. I once more examined the provisions of the two above mentioned Acts and concluded that the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch, in requiring licensed dining establishments to carry a selection of British Columbia wines, is acting outside its jurisdiction, and its actions are based on a mistake of law. I recommended to the Branch that it not require licensed dining rooms to serve such wines unless and until statutory authority exists for such a requirement. The Liquor Control and Licensing Branch then informed me that its own legal sources disagreed with my opinion. I considered whether I should make the issue the subject of a report to Cabinet and/or to the Legislative Assembly. Considering the nature of the case and the nature of the policy involved, I decided not to devote any further resources to this matter and not to exercise the above mentioned options. However, I still feel that the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch may be acting without statutory authority. CS 81-026 Liquor store properly sited When the Branch relocated its liquor store in an interior community, it leased retail space for the new store. A local corporation expressed to me its 37 suspicion that political considerations at the municipal level had influenced the site selection. My investigation revealed that the Branch had followed appropriate criteria in selecting the new location. The requirement for retail space had been advertised to the public. A Branch committee examined all offers received and made a recommendation to the General Manager of the Branch. The General Manager acted upon the committee recommendation received. The recommendation was based on appropriate site location, convenient service to residents and tourists, and lease costs. The site selected met all criteria. I found that the Branch used proper procedures in arriving at its site selection decision and that the complaint was not substantiated. CS 81-027 Limit on mark-up of liquor I received a complaint against the Branch concerning the fact that licensed establishments cannot mark up wine by more than 100%. A regulation made pursuant to the Liquor Control and Licensing Actrequires that all licensed establishments make available to the public a price list. This list must be approved as to format and pricing formula by the General Manager or his authorized agent. I interpreted this to mean that the General Manager is indeed empowered to determine the price of liquor sold in licensed establishments and to impose a limit on mark-up. I therefore found this complaint unsubstantiated. CS 81-028 A society's responsibility A member of a society incorporated under the Society Act, having been denied a financial statement by the society, turned for help to the Ministry. Later he complained to me that the Ministry had not helped him. I am not empowered to investigate societies, but I can investigate Ministries so I discussed the matter with Ministry staff. They informed the offending society that it is obliged by statute to send financial information to members. Further, they offered to provide my complainant with the financial statement he wanted from their own records. CS81-029 Long wait for payout In 1966 the complainants invested approximately $1600 in certificates of a Mortgage Corporation. The funds of the Corporation were frozen by the Superintendent of Brokers in 1968. A Trustee was appointed but he failed to take the necessary steps to complete the payments to the investors. 38 For many years nothing was done until the complainants brought this matter to my attention and contacted the Superintendent of Brokers. LM receipt of the complaint the SuperintendernB Brokers met with the Trustee of the CompanyHJ agreed to make payouts to all the remaining investors. The Superintendent of Brokers undertooM) supervise the payout to ensure that it wouldM completed. CS 81-030 Promises, promises . . . A landlord complained that a Rentalsman Offfi had failed to keep a promise to send her a cffl§- sion letter within a specified period of timeH The Rentalsman Officer acknowledged the oB- sion and offered an adequate explanation. B- ertheless, the cause of the further delay should have been explained to the complainant when it became clear that a decision could not be made by the promised date. I informed the Rentalsman that I had receMd several complaints about the failure of Renral- man Officers to return phone calls and mail lems on the dates promised. While I had not inwp- gated each of these complaints, I felt the prolfe was serious enough to warrant preventive action. I suggested that the Rentalsman issue a reminder to his staff in the hope that this problem would occur less often in the future. In response, a Depj uty Rentalsman wrote a memorandum to his& This suggested that staff members generally avoid promising to do something by a specjSd date, but that if they had made such a promise and could not keep it, to let the landlord orttffit know why. The memo also told staff to makagn effort to return telephone calls quickly. Whilejffiis was probably well-intentioned I am not satj^d that this response will necessarily lead to appropriate service to the public. CS 81-031 Justice delayed is justice denied Two tenants from different parts of the province complained that delays in the handling of their respective landlords' applications for substantia additional rent increases could cause them finan-| cial hardship and considerable inconvenience.J Staff at the Rentalsman's office had told the tenants that, because of Rentalsman backlog, a de cision on the landlords' applications might not be made until after the effective date of the proposec rent increases. The tenants complained thatifthe landlords' applications were approved they coulc not afford to pay the rent and would have to seel' other accommodation. One of the tenants said that since she could no budget for the increase, she felt compelled to give her landlord a notice of termination without waitinc for a decision from the Rentalsman's office. The lalsman's office told me that the delays in llling this type of rent increase application Igresult in a tenant's receiving less than a one- j h notice of the amount of rent increase. It was Honfirmed that the Rentalsman's office cur- r had no guidelines with respect to the exer- of its discretion. [Rentalsman agreed with me that tenants : d not have to bear the cost of delays caused s office's backlog of applications. He was lared to issue a policy guideline to his staff to re that tenants have the proper amount of Ito decide whether to stay or go. He also lid that, for this policy to be effective, dispu- Hand applicants should be fully informed of lolicy and advised of the delay they can ex- iDefore a decision is made. 1-032 Idy inspection warming to tenant Bant complained that the Rentalsman had e to respond to his requests for an inspection ! suite. Hiant had found his suite cold and had been le to convince his landlord to provide more ■He applied to the Rentalsman to redirect his b pay for a portable heater. A Rentalsman crpromised to have the premises inspected. Hwaiting more than four weeks, the tenant Hained to me that his premises had not yet Hispected and that his phone calls had not returned. Hpected the Rentalsman's file and dis- td the matter with a Deputy Rentalsman who Hied that because of high caseloads and Hiortages, three-week inspection delays Hot unusual. In this case, the file showed that Kjtalsman Officer had in fact requested the Bon of the complainant's suite but the re- Hhad not been properly communicated to t.iff reponsible for inspections. It was appar- tit this was an isolated incident and was not b any deficiencies in the procedures used. Hjmplainant's file was referred back to the Hsman Officer for completion and an inspects conducted. A hydrograph machine was Hid to measure the suite's temperature and rjity over a 48-hour period. I MINISTRY OF EDUCATION tji3d, withdrawn, discontinued 11 Bed: corrected during investigation 6 Hmtiated: corrected after recommend 1 H.ntiated but not rectified 5 Hostantiated _9 .OSED—TOTAL ^^r. 32 |r of cases open Dec. 31,1981 _3 The Ministry of Education has a wide range of responsibilities relating to education and special programs in the schools and institutions of British Columbia. Local school boards set policy and priorities within the framework established by Ministry of Education policy following the School Act. I do not have the authority to investigate public schools, colleges, and boards of school trustees. However, I have found that the Ministry of Education has helped resolve some complaints and in other cases has furnished information which has helped the complainant to understand the problem better and seek a local solution. My staff and I have found the Ministry of Education personnel to be knowledgeable and cooperative. I have attempted to arrange a meeting with the Minister of Education but unfortunately he has not found it possible to accede to my request. I have pursued with the Minister several complaints received from teachers on probationary appointment who were terminated without the benefit of an impartial review commission. These teachers were concerned that they had not been afforded natural justice and fairness. I have asked the Minister to consider a proposal for changing statutory provisions so that probationary teachers are given similar safeguards to teachers on permanent appointment. I believe, as the Minister does, that it is imperative that competent teachers be placed in the classroom. However, I believe it is regrettable that the Minister apparently has decided that a review commission not be mandatory. In my opinion, such a review procedure need not increase the possibility that an incompetent probationary teacher would be allowed to remain in his or her position. CS 81-033 Parlez-vous immersion? Non, says school board I received a number of complaints about education matters that arise where the Ministry creates a policy or guidelines within which programs operate in the schools. In some instances, it is a decision of the local school board whether or not to implement the program in the schools under its jurisdiction; other programs are mandatory. A good number of these complaints concerned French immersion classes for elementary school students. Some parents aimed theircomplaints at the Ministry itself, arguing that since one fully French program, the Cadre de Francais, is available only to children of francophone parents, there is discrimination against anglophone children. It is provincial government policy that the French population have the right to be educated in their first language. Costs associated with the program are the 39 responsibility of the Ministry. It is my opinion that the policy regarding the Programme-Cadre de Francais is not improperly discriminatory as its existence is founded on the laudable principle that children from homes where parents use either of the two official languages of our country may be educated in that language. Other parents aimed their complaints at local boards of trustees, saying that they had not considered the wishes of parents in deciding not to implement immersion programs. Early French Immersion and Late French Immersion programs of the Ministry are available to children of any cultural origin but at this time, are implemented only if the local school board chooses to do so. Extra costs attributable to these immersion programs must be borne by the school district and therefore are phased in when an affirmative decision has been made at the local level. The Ministry has developed the curriculum within its policy and guidelines for French education of anglophone children and it is a local option whether that curriculum will be implemented. At the moment, my jurisdiction extends only to government ministries, crown corporations, boards and agencies in which the majority of directors are appointed by Cabinet or a Minister, or are in some way responsible to government. While this enables me to inquire into decisions of the Ministry of Education, it does not allow me to comment on the actions and decisions made by a board of school trustees, nor on whether parents' wishes should be taken into account when decisions are made against the implementation of a French immersion program. CS 81-034 Fairness for teachers A teacher was disturbed about the decision by the Board of Trustees of his school district to transfer him from a senior secondary to a junior secondary school. He formally appealed his transfer to the Board of Trustees but was advised that the Board had resolved to proceed with his transfer; no reasons for this decision were given. The School Act states that a teacher may appeal to the Minister of Education against a transfer, and the Minister may review the case and then make a decision which is final and binding. This teacher requested such an appeal. A representative of the Minister asked the teacher if he had any additional reasons why his transfer should not take -.lace. A letter was also sent to the Board of Trustees and asking for reasons for the transfer. Less han a week later, the teacher was advised that the Minister had decided to sustain the transfer. The focus of my investigation lay with the procedures used in the "reviewing" of the transfer. Impartiality and fairness should be observed in 40 the process being undertaken by the MiniR who is acting more or less as a judge in a corf§| vital to the complainant. Fairness often requires that each party in a dispute have a chance to ifi the argument the other is making, and havSa chance to rebut it. In this case, neither the teacftr nor the Board of Trustees had the opportunitH be aware of the position presented by the other. As a result of my intervention, the Minister agreed to review again the teacher's transfer and as a part of that process he agreed that both the Boarcfol Trustees and the teacher will receive a copy offie submission by the other and each will then fSl the opportunity to refute, alter or agree withHe points of the other submission. Following slT* review by the Minister, a response with reasonfe the final decision will be given to both parties. The Minister has agreed that this procedure will a» in all future transfer reviews carried out by flm. It is my opinion that the inclusion of these pro cedures will reflect the basic principles of nafffa justice and fairness in such situations. CS 81-035 Parent-school conflict One parent complained about administrationMc policies at her child's school, but it soon appeared that many other parents had similar concMs, and that the parents had been unsuccessMal starting discussions that might have resolved the problems. A problem of special concern was that schoo administrators had, without informing parentsT quired some students to sign a 'contract' which stated rules for behaviour. Violation of the 'contract' had resulted in the expulsion of one pupil. Several others had dropped out as a resufol dissatisfaction with methods used by teacjgrs, principal, and School Board. The parents wrote to the Minister of Education anc asked for an inquiry. The Minister replied that he believed that parents and school had met anc resolved the problem; the parents did not believe this had happened. The Ombudsman does not have jurisdictlMtc investigate school boards and their employees The section of the Ombudsman Act proving such authority remains unproclaimed. Therefore my investigation focused on the actions of the Ministry. I encouraged Ministry personnel to keef watch on the situation. They discussed the matte on several occasions with the superintendent. Eventually, a committee composed of parents teachers, administrators and trustees was former and dialogue began. It appears that the useo student contracts has now been stopped ant other techniques for dealing with questions* behaviour, acceptable to parents and students are being implemented by school administrate r |jw3diation role played by the Ministry has had lesired result of bringing about an improve- I in communication and an attitude of trust. -036 i the federal hand know what the ncial hand is doing? Lng woman wished to take training which If help her in working with children. Early in I she went to a Canada Employment Centre :) counsellor and made application for spon- (ip through CEC. Two months later, she was |jy her counsellor that she was fourth on the I be placed in the course of her choice. The nn understood this to mean that she was led of a space. This was very attractive to her. ■|her course was in a field where CEC pre- Hpritical skill shortages, she would be given Hiliving allowance, have her tuition paid and fgible for UIC benefits. Her, while she waited for her course to start id fell through. The Provincial Government, Eh the Ministry, has the right to set the fees to !|iid by CEC. For the fall term in 1981, the (iry substantially increased the fees in order Bet the actual costs of educating each stu- fiThe Federal Government did not allocate H*tra dollars. In order to meet these new Hints, CEC dropped its sponsorship for the it3 the complainant was planning to take. This jise to the complaint. My focus, because of ihits of my authority, was on the role of the ■cial Ministn of Education. Hi that the actions taken by the Ministry were ■ the framework of the Federal-Provincial ■ment. While the result was disappointing =ne student's point of view, it did not come U through any breach by the Ministry of its rtctual obligations. H3ld us that no person should assume that a a is assured until final confirmation is given. Htample clearly points out how the decisions •9 level of government can affect the services Sther level. Unfortunately, the cumulative Hnay adversely affect members of the pub- Mo are often not informed of decisions. 937 ked improvement pr had been employed to grade papers by students of the Correspondence i of the Ministry of Education. His pay was on the number of papers marked. He was called a casual worker and as such was njblic servant covered by Public Service i :ts. At issue was whether the marker was entitled to holiday pay. If he was an "employee", legislation required that he receive holiday pay. The Ministry thought that the fee-for-service basis on which he was paid showed that he was not an employee but a self-employed individual. I was able to point out to the Ministry that it had deducted income tax and unemployment insurance premiums from the complainant's pay, and therefore, in my opinion, he was an employee and entitled to vacation pay. The Ministry, upon obtaining legal advice, issued a cheque for $379.91 to the complainant and also 'volunteered to search its records and determine whether other course markers in similar circumstances should also receive vacation pay. CS 81-038 Regulation on probationary teachers unfair A teacher was appointed to the staff of an elementary school in September 1978, and in May 1979, received notification that he was to be placed on probationary appointment. In February 1980, his employment was terminated. The termination was based on assessments carried out by his supervisors but which the teacher believed were written in an unfair manner and based on incomplete information. The teacher was granted an interview with the School Board, the employers of the supervisors who had made the allegedly unfair report on the teacher's conduct. The Board upheld the termination of the probationary teacher's employment with the school district. Through the School Act and regulations, a teacher who is terminated while on probationary appointment does not have the right to request that an impartial review committee be established by the Minister of Education. There is no requirement that written reasons be given when a teacher is either placed on probationary appointment, or terminated, and therefore such a person would have little remedy. Some teachers with excellent records from former school districts have been harshly treated by districts to which they move. A teacher hired with the expectation of a continuing appointment may be arbitrarily reclassified as a probationary teacher and then, later, terminated. The reclassification is used as a way of avoiding School Act requirements for hearings. It is my belief that probationary teachers should be allowed the same statutory rights of review as teachers on a continuing contract so that probationary teachers' appointments cannot be arbitrarily terminated. However, the Ministry of Education has not effected changes which would ensure at least this minimum of natural justice and fairness and therefore the complaints which I have received could not be rectified. 41 MINISTRY OF ENERGY, MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES Declined, withdrawn, discontinued 1 Resolved: corrected during investigation 5 Substantiated: corrected after recommend. 2 Substantiated but not rectified 0 Not substantiated _3 CLOSED—TOTAL 11 Number of cases open Dec. 31,1981 9 CS 81-039 Holes in the seamless web of the law A placer miner lodged a formal complaint with the Chief Gold Commissioner concerning two placer mining leases held by another miner, which he felt should be cancelled. The Commissioner set a date for a formal hearing on the matter under s.50 of the Mineral Act, but later cancelled the hearing and informed the miner that s.50 of the Act did not apply to matters involving placer leases. The miner did not understand the reason for the cancellation, and despite many contacts, was unable to obtain a comprehensible reason from the Ministry. Since a considerable period had elapsed since his original complaint, he was afraid that any further delay might legally preclude him from taking further action. He therefore brought his problem to me. My investigation showed that placer leases were affected by two separate statutes, the Mining (Placer) Act and the Mineral Act. Until 1980 the Ministry had relied upon the hearing procedure in the Mineral Act to handle complaints involving placer leases, but a legal opinion had then been provided to the Chief Gold Commissioner that this was a misuse of the legislation. In effect there was no method provided by law for dealing with disputes concerning placer leases. The Ministry intended to rectify this situation by introducing appropriate amendments to the legislation as soon as possible. If the amendments were made retroactive, the complainant's objections could be heard at some time in the future. Since the resolution of this matter must necessarily await the 1982 session of the Legislative Assembly, when the "seamless web of the law" will presumably be repaired, I have informed my complainant of my findings, and have ended my investigation. CS 81-040 Major mistreatment of miner The operator of a placer mine complained that his mine had been shut down unfairly. He was informed by the local inspector of mines that several complaints had been received regardingM muddiness of the creek running past his operation, and as a result he was informed that the operations could not be resumed until ponllf and water clarification was adequate. He was also told that a reclamation bond would be reqtm from him before he could reopen. The complainant had been afforded no opportunity by the Ministry to answer the "complaiw against him. In fact, investigation showedHt- only one complaint had ever been receiveH neighbour had stated that he had seen mJl- ness in the creek the previous fall. Regular insgffi- tions of the operation had been conducteeB Ministry staff, and the fall inspection report had noted that the operation was going well andffit no reclamation permit was required. The complaint that the Ministry had used unfairfljl- cedures was therefore substantiated. The mine operator also was concerned about the length of time taken by the Ministry to approvSs permit application. This aspect of the complaint was substantiated as well, as the mine operator had applied for a permit in May but did not re<8e his permit until July. On the basis of my findings, I recommended that the Ministry apologize to the complainant for Siting down his operation without a Ministry-conj ducted inspection, and that where new forms or bonds are required for the first time, notice ol these requirements be given to the party well before the start of the mining season. Lastly, I recommended a procedure to minimize the timare- quired for obtaining permits during the miffng season. The Ministry fully implemented my recommffld- ations and sent the complainant a letter of a ogy. As well, a directive was issued by the Chie' Inspector of Mines to all inspectors and resideni engineers in the Ministry, implementing,/ recommendations. MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT (The figures below include complaints against the Pollution Control and Pesticide Control Appea Boards.) Declined, withdrawn, discontinued *'* I Resolved: corrected during investigation Hj| Substantiated: corrected after recommend. 8 Substantiated but not rectified :— Not substantiated 1 CLOSED—TOTAL Number of cases open Dec. 31, il! 21* 1981. -J 11981 figures for complaints involving this Min- lare dominated by the large number related to Ifearibaldi Case" which was the subject of my ISpecial Report to the Legislative Assembly i in 1981. Because I closed that matter after ||g that nearly all of these 153 Garibaldi corn- Its were substantiated, the bald statistics l/ that almost three-quarters of the complaints Inst the Ministry of Environment were Igantiated. sver, in order to maintain some kind of per- tive I feel I should provide a second list for Ministry, with the Garibaldi cases excluded, my comments below are based on this list: ned, withdrawn, discontinued 30 Ived: corrected during investigation 16 tantiated: corrected after recommend 2 lantiated but not rectified 1 libstantiated „.11 BLOSED—TOTAL 60 per of cases open Dec. 31, 1981 46 n be seen that much the same number of jgations was closed in 1981 and in 1980, 3 slightly higher proportion of the 1981 clos- being resolved by the Ministry (i.e., before I reached any final conclusions) or being i "not substantiated". Ugh I did not discern any trend of complaints ted towards one specific area of this Minis- responsibilities, there is one word which ably arose in a considerable proportion of the flaints during 1981: flooding. Following di- His floods in various parts of the Province in Imber 1980 and in 1981, people complained It the procedural guidelines, the delays, and Bsic policy involved with flood relief (Provin- Bnergency Program). Others complained ic: the inadequate funding of the River Protec- Essistance Program (Water Management Hi), which offers government/citizen cost- aig on preventive measures such as the build- Bjykes and strengthening of river banks. Yet Homplainants were unhappy about the way Ministry handled its responsibilities under JJ 1) of the Land Title Act, by which a restrictive [giant may be required prior to subdivision pval of land in a flood plain. Hyithout my elaborating on development pat- rr in flood plains, or on the climatic conditions iii regularly bring enormous precipitation to ■parts of the Province, I feel it is well known Hany of our citizens live in the shadow of flood e:s which are more severe than those facing I other Canadians. It is equally clear to me ahnder the present legislation people can— and frequently do—buy properties whose Certificates of Title give no indication that they lie in flood plains. Purchasers are often unaware either of the likelihood of flooding or of the possible need for restrictive covenants should they wish later to subdivide. Hence I receive complaints from people who are convinced (even if I cannot substantiate their complaints' against administrative actions) that they are the innocent victims of traps and shortcomings in "the system". The key phrase seems to be "If only I'd known that before!". I believe this situation provides much room for initiative on the part of this Ministry. Residents need to know how to prevent or minimize flooding. They also need to know what government help is available if aflood does occur. If residents had this information there might be several benefits; I would receive fewer complaints, government would need to pay less disaster compensation, and citizens would experience less despair, distress and financial hardship. In my last Annual Report I mentioned some public concern about pesticide use permits and the decisions of the Pesticide Control Appeal Board. Individuals and groups contacted me again about these matters in 1981. In such cases, I often must explain that I cannot become involved in technological or scientific arguments. The use of a herbicide or other chemical substance on a large tract of land inevitably involves some risks or adverse effects alongside the anticipated benefits. The comparison of such risks and benefits is essentially a scientific exercise. I do not foresee circumstances in which my involvement would be useful in making an assessment of this kind. However, it is my role to investigate procedures and administrative methods. I might, for example, verify whether Ministry officials have considered all relevant information and insisted on necessary precautions before issuing a permit, or whether the Board has observed procedural fairness in hearing objections to a permit. The complaints I received did lead me to feel that the Board's procedures could be improved. For instance, some complainants pointed out that the Board never gave reasons for its decisions, so that on the few occasions that objections were successful it was impossible to know what factor had been the crucial one. Others complained that since transcripts of the hearings were never made, it was impossible for them to demonstrate later their case that the procedures were slanted in favour of the permit holder. Early in 1981 this Ministry was preparing the statute and the regulations for the Environment Management Act, under which an Environmental Appeal Board would be established to take over the functions of both the Pollution Control Board and the Pesticide Control Appeal Board. My staff 43 J therefore met with a senior official of the Ministry and with the Ministry's solicitor, to go over all the procedural complaints that had arisen, and I was pleased to see that the recent Environmental Appeal Board Procedure Regulation had addressed some of the problems which were identified. Finally, there remains the problem of the Garibaldi complaints. I believe my original investigation uncovered all the relevant facts, and these were included in my Special Report. Having gone the full distance permitted by the Ombudsman Act, I was obliged to close these cases in 1981. To the best of my knowledge at the time of writing, many of them have not yet been rectified. CS 81-041 Impossible deadline The owner of a IO-acre property beside a creek complained that the Ministry had ordered her to clean up a mess for which she was not responsible, and had set an impossible deadline for completion of the work. Investigation revealed that the complainant had made an oral agreement with a contractor, by which the contractor removed 30,000 cubic yards of gravel from the property in order to provide fill for another job he was doing. However, after he removed the gravel, the contractor failed to complete the job. Winter rains turned the partly-excavated property into a "moonscape", and much mud was washed into the nearby creek. In an effort to put pressure on the contractor the complainant contacted a number of agencies, including her Regional District office. That office contacted the Ministry of Environment, which sent an engineer to inspect the site. Noting the condition of the property, the contamination of the creek, and the fact that a downstream neighbour used the creek water for domestic purposes, the official ordered my complainant to clean up the creek within six weeks, and to take steps to prevent further contamination. The complainant felt that the Ministry should pursue not her but the contractor who had caused the problem. She could not afford the $10,000 it would cost to restore the property. Further, the ground was soaked and would not support the heavy machinery needed for the job. The complainant felt sure the Ministry would fine or otherwise punish her if she did not meet the deadline. We discussed the problem with all parties involved except the elusive contractor. The complainant finally accepted that it was reasonable for the Ministry to address its order to her as the owner of the property, and not to become involved in the dispute between her and the contractor. The Ministry, recognizing her problems, withdrew its 44 deadline and agreed that the work could be completed later in the year, when weather and ground conditions were suitable. Also, it clarified that it I was requiring only about $500 worth of work, M \ sufficient to prevent further contamination of the I stream. The contractor had used the gravel he had removed on a job he was doing for the federal government. In an attempt to help the complainw further, my investigator contacted federal government officials, to see whether the contractor hap been required to post a labour and materials bond which might be used to repay the complainant. A bond had been posted, but unfortunatelythetJii| limit for claims had expired months earlier, so tie dispute with the contractor remained. HowevE the part of the dispute which was within my jurisdiction, that involving the impossible deadline imposed by the Ministry, was resolved. CS 81-042 Water pressures A single parent contacted my office with two com- plaints. The Ministry of Environment was, she said, delaying issuing her with a water licence, thus depriving her and her family of a water supply. The Ministry of Human Resources was, she felt, harassing her in an attempt to prove that she was incapable of caring for her son. As lack of water was the more urgent concern, I decided to focus my investigation on this matter first. The water problem hinged on the issue of access to her water supply as the souce of tfie water was not on the complainant's land, but on land owned by MacMillan Bloedel and leased by a neighbour. The neighbour was denying the complainant the right to cross the lease to reach the water supply. Therefore, simply issuing awater licence would not have provided her with access. Consequently, while arranging for the licence to be processed quickly, my office informally m- preached MacMillan Bloedel in an attempt to||- solve the problem. As a result of their cooperation, she was issued a formal access permit. The co|n- plainant now has a clear legal right to the water. With the water problem resolved, the household pressures that were aggravated by lack of water were relieved and the complainant decided not to pursue her complaint with the Ministry of Human Resources. Resolving this complaint involved the voluntary cooperation of a range of authorities—from the R.C.M.P. to the school board to MacMillan Bloedel. Their recognition that the complainants difficulties with her water line warranted their time and attention is commendable. 111-043 1 to inform /y spring, the river next to a complainant's Hrty burst its banks and damaged his prop- Hfhe property owner applied to the Ministry of pronment for financial help in controlling the ■ Under the River Protection Assistance Pro- |t, Ministry staff may approve government Big of up to 75% of the cost of works needed ■event damage caused by a flooding river, lis is, however, a long waiting list, and the com- llant was told that his project was eligible but Id not be funded immediately. lar and another flood later, the complainant Ided he must go ahead on his own. He as- led he would eventually be reimbursed 75% of Hosts, but apparently did not check this as- Ktion with the Ministry. In fact, the Ministry had Hey against sharing in projects already com- E'd and assumed the complainant was aware Its. The property owner complained to me that Hry officials should have made this policy picluded that both parties had acted upon Bsonable assumptions. It seemed to me that Homplainant ought to have first obtained a Biitment from the Ministry that he would be llequently reimbursed if he went ahead on his HSimilarly, I concluded that Ministry officials R unreasonably in assuming that the complai- Iwas aware that if he went ahead on his own, ||ould not be subsequently reimbursed. I ap- eate that it can be argued that it is not the Visibility of Ministry officials to ensure that Hbers of the public are aware of all relevant Hjation so that they may conduct their affairs blrdingly. Ber, it is my view that when a public servant iHlformation that he knows is needed by a Hber of the public and is contacted by that 3ioer of the public, the public servant should Hde that information. case, it appeared that the works which the ilainant had constructed were not of a suffi- guality to provide long-term protection from hg. I therefore recommended that the Minis- :her pay half of the 75% which they would 'ordinarily contributed to the complainant's if the works, or pay the entire cost of bringing Drks up to the necessary standard in order to e its durability. Although the Ministry did not ■ with my conclusion that Ministry officials icted upon unreasonable assumptions, the try did agree to accept my second recom- fetion, and I thereby considered the com- «rectified. 1 CS 81-044 Clean-up The complainant lives near a mill in the northern interior of the province. The mill uses a beehive burner to get rid of wood waste. The complainant was concerned that waste material around the burner and prevailing winds created a serious fire hazard to his home, workshop and property. I notified the regional office of the Ministry of Environment. The next day, the mill was issued an order under the Pollution Control Act to clean up the area and provide sufficient cover material near the burner. The order was not complied with and the mill was held in contravention of the Pollution Control Act. The Ministry, recognizing the seriousness of the situation, then met with regional Crown Counsel to discuss bringing legal action against the company. As the Ministry took the steps provided by the legislation for the investigation and resolution of this matter, I discontinued my investigation. I found the regional staff cooperative and sympathetic in a situation where the threat of a fire was a vital concern to the complainant. CS 81-045 Brewer's sewer worries neighbour A homeowner became worried when he was told that a nearby brewery had received approval to construct a storm sewer on an easement which crossed his property, to a river behind. He had heard that the brewery would be able to discharge warm water or industrial waste into the sewer, and he was concerned about the potential environmental effects, such as enhanced algal growth in the river. Also, he was afraid that construction of the sewer might increase the likelihood of flooding on his land. He felt the government should not give the necessary approvals for this sewer until his concerns were addressed, but he was uncertain how he should proceed. I found that the brewery's pollution control permit allowed the discharge only of uncontaminated cooling water into the new storm sewer, which would flow into the river where the brewery's discharge would be diluted about 100 times. This made it unlikely that any significant water temperature rise or algal growth would result. The discharge of any other industrial waste by the brewery would contravene the Pollution Control Act. These and other facts were explained to the complainant by Ministry officials and by my investigator. The complainant was satisfied by the explanations, and agreed that he would contact the Ministry immediately if he had reason to believe improper discharges were being made into the new sewer. 45 CS 81-046 Garbage in, garbage out A man complained to my office about the manner in which his application to operate a landfill site had been treated by the Ministry of Environment and the Pollution Control Board. He said the Ministry's Waste Management Branch had taken into consideration irrelevant factors when evaluating his application, and that the Pollution Control Board had delayed unduly in deciding on his appeal of the Branch's decision, and had finally issued an order which the Branch could not or would not implement. The man and his partner had applied for a permit . in June of 1979, and were turned down in September of the same year. The Director of Pollution Control stated that the application was being rejected because of technical problems associated with the site. My complainant then appealed the Director's decision to the Pollution Control Board. The appeal was heard in December 1979, and the resulting order was issued in September 1980. The Board ordered the Director to accept an amended application, but the Director refused on the grounds that he had no legal authority to do so. Neither the Director nor the Board held public hearings into the matter, although there were 95 objectors to the application, some of whom wanted to present conflicting technical information. My investigation revealed that although the Director of Pollution Control had cited technical reasons for rejecting the application, other factors were influential in the decision. These other factors included representations made by local and provincial elected representatives, doubts about the co- operativeness of the applicant, and the vigour of local protests. I also found that the Pollution Control Board had failed to provide the applicant with file documentation priortothe appeal, had delayed unreasonably in issuing its order, and had issued an order which I believe to be contrary to law. I found that both the Director and the Board had erred in not holding a public hearing into the matter, and that through this failure both the applicant and the objectors were denied adequate opportunity to know and to respond to the other parties' arguments. The result was a situation in which both applicant and objectors were placed in limbo, with neither party given certainty that the landfill application would or would not ultimately be approved. To remedy this situation I recommended that the Pollution Control Board consider and properly determine the appeal, and that a public hearing be held as part of the Board's consideration of the matter. I also recommended that either the Ministry or the Board incur the costs of the parties 46 involved in the hearing.This recommendationlHl accepted, and the Board heard the appeal Mi public hearing on June 25-26, 1981. On June 29, 1981 the Board issued its decision denyingjB appeal and upholding the Director's SepterrW 1979 decision. My concern in this matter was not the issue of whether or not the site in question was suitable for a landfill operation, but rather that fair adminiH| tive procedures be followed in arriving at a decision on the application. I am satisfied that the holding of a public hearing resulted in a clan^H tion of some matters, but I was not satisfiecB)H the general administrative procedures folloJHj by the Pollution Control Board. The Board at that point was being replaced by the new EnvirontSH tal Appeal Board, and I am monitoring the development of procedures by the new Board. I CS 81-047 Inspecting pesticide permits The complainant, an environmental group^H concerned that the Pesticide Control Appeal Board had upheld a permit for use of 2,4-D on a tract of forest land. The grounds upon which they complained of this decision were twofold. First, there appeared to be a discrepancy between the amount of 2,4-D applied for and granted, and the amount accounted for in the applicant's treatnHt plan and map. Secondly, the applicant hadEj; legedly failed to comply with some of the ct^ffi tions outlined in the same permit during the previous year's pesticide treatment period. My investigation revealed that while the appliiant (a large forest products corporation) had been granted permission to treat 750 hectares over a three-year period, their treatment plansjp- counted for application of pesticide to only 498 hectares. In response to this finding the Pestii» Control Branch amended the permit and notited the corporation that the total area to be treated under the permit would be 498 hectares. FurM- more, I found that the following two conditions of the permit had been violated: Condition 2: That the contractor hired to carrfflt the project possess a current BrB Columbia Pest Control Service Licence. Condition 6: That the effective date of this pitt is March 26,1981, and that the object be carried out within the period June 1 to September 15 in each of the years 1981,1982 and 1983. As a result of these findings, the Pesticide CdjHJ Branch suspended this permit. In additionlES' investigation has had a significant impact on the Ministry in that it has prompted the Pesticide Control Branch to make a number of changes in its procedures which are outlined as follows: j Icences pertaining to various permits will be laced in a separate file to verify that the li- |{pce is valid during the period that the permit in effect. (he permit is for a number of years, the valid- j of the licence will be verified for each effec- fe period of the permit. the licence is found to be invalid during the fective period of a permit, the permit will be litomatically revoked by headquarters. ie following guidelines for inspecting a bsticide permit site have been inserted into e Ministry's policy and procedure manual. An ■specter of the Branch as defined by the hsticide Control Act, will endeavour to verify Is following points when inspecting a permit le, either before, during or after treatment: Idate of inspection Ipermitholder's name & address Ipermit number ■name of employee contracted & certificate number [date & time of pesticide use ■location of permit area ■total treatment area ■pesticide and its registration number under [the Pest Control Products Act (Canada) Irate of application & method of application Itarget pest species lithe prevailing meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation and approximate velocity and direction of the wind ■special problems unique to the target area & iapplication equipment iany other relevant information such as prox- Kpnity of area to domestic water supplies or Bsh-bearing waters Hiew, these steps constitute an acceptable ■rise. I found the Ministry staff very coopera- Besolving this matter and interested in mak- Bprovements in its procedures which will Ho improve internal audits on permits and ■Dy ensure that in future, permits are utilized ily as specified. Else was technically closed in early 1982. It Bided here as an exception to the general because of its general information value MINISTRY OF FINANCE Bed, withdrawn, discontinueas 19 Bed: corrected during investigation. 9 Hntiated: corrected after recommend. 2 Hntiated but not rectified 0 Hbstantiated IZ liLOSED—TOTAL 47 Her of cases open Dec. 31,1981 .24 tt The Ministry of Finance is responsible for the administration of the financial affairs of the government and the management of public revenues and expenditures. As was true in 1980, the complaints I received about the Ministry in 1981 primarily involved the Consumer Taxation Branch and the Real Property Taxation Branch. The concentration of complaints in these areas of the Ministry probably stems from the fact that the taxation statutes which these branches administer directly affect the public. The Consumer Taxation Branch administers, among other statutes, the Social Services Tax Act Complaints for the most part concern the application of the charging provisions or exemptions under this Act. Complaints about the Real Property Taxation Branch involve questions about eligibility for home owner grants and penalties for late payment of property taxes. Most of the complaints I have received seem to involve disputes over whether the facts of an individual case fall within or outside a given statutory provision. However, an area of general concern has emerged. It involves the procedures used in the forfeiture of land to the Crown for the nonpayment of property taxes and the relief available once forfeiture has occurred. Ministry staff continue to be cooperative and responsive to requests from my office. CS 81-048 Double tax is hardship, Cabinet agrees A newly-formed paving company objected to paying sales tax twice, once when it purchased a trailer, and again when it leased the same vehicle back from a finance company. Because the Social Service Tax Act defines "sale" to include lease arrangements, the Ministry was allowed to collect sales tax on the trailer twice. In this case, the complainant made the purchase only because he was unable to arrange a lease; only a month later, he succeeded in transferring the trailer to the finance company and leasing it back. This is probably not the situation the definition of "sale" was intended to cover. In my opinion, the company had a valid complaint. Although there are no statutory provisions for the return of taxes paid in this situation, the Financial Administration Act allows the Cabinet to remit a tax in order to avoid public inconvenience, hardship or injustice to individuals. This provision is used very infrequently. The Ministry is reluctant to amend the statute to provide for repayment as that may allow abuse of the tax system. I recommended that the Ministry apply to Cabinet so the tax paid on the lease transaction could be refunded. The Ministry accepted my recommendation, and Cabinet approved a refund. 47 CS 81-049 Ministry does its best for religious objector An employee of the Ministry of Finance was dismissed from the public service because her religious convictions forbade her joining the B.C. Government Employees Union. The Public Service Labour Relations Act makes union membership a condition of employment. It is possible for a person with a religious objection to union membership to seek an exemption from membership, and to authorize payment to the union of money equivalent to the union dues. The complainant successfully applied to the Labour Relations Board for an exemption from membership. However, the complainant was unwilling to authorize payment to the union, and the legislation does not allow exemption from this requirement. Although an officer of the Ministry made sure the employee understood that if she refused she might lose her job, she could not authorize payment because of religious scruples. As a result, the Ministry had no choice but to end her employment. The Ministry made further efforts to help the complainant. It looked unsuccessfully for a job for which union membership was not required. Further, she was given several short-term positions for which union membership was not necessary, with the hope that this action would give her time to find a new job outside the public service. I did not find that this complaint against the Ministry was substantiated. CS 81-050 Tax tangle An individual complained to me that his 1981 property tax notice had shown 1980 taxes in arrears. He stated that he had never been advised by the Surveyor of Taxes in 1980 that any taxes were owing. I learned that before the complainant bought the property, an error had occurred. In registering the property, the mortgage holder, a lending institution, had switched the legal description of the 48 Fteprinted courtesy King Features Syndicate! property with another on which it also held a mortgage. The registration error went undetected unti early 1980 when one mortgage was discharger] on the sale of the property to the complainant. The lending institution agreed to notify the Surveyors Taxes of the mistake, but did not. The result was that both the lending institution and the complainant's mortgagee forwarded 1980 ta payments for the same property. The taxes on thi second property were not paid at all. The Surveyo of Taxes returned one of the payments as an ovei payment. When, some time after this, the Surveyo of Taxes was notified of and corrected the origliE error, the arrears and penalties surfaced as owini against the complainant's property. After following the tangled course of events, thi first lending institution agreed to accept respfin sibilityforthe problem. The complainant withdrev his complaint against the Surveyor of TaxesHj CS 81-051 A house or a home? An individual applied for a homeowner's grantor property he owned. In addition to owning thi; property, he also rented an apartment close to hid place of work. He was denied the grant by the Surveyor of Taxes because it appeared, giveriiN use of the apartment, that the property in questiorj was not his principal residence. As the Surveyor of Taxes suggested, the homeowner submitted a statutory declaration stating that the property was in fact his permanent residence and that he resided there for "by fame greater part of the year". The Surveyor of Taxli however, asked that he fill in and have notari.Sp form outlining in more detail the number of Igp he spent in each location. The complainarap- fused; the Surveyor of Taxes continued to insist this point the individual complained to mem I found that the complainant had already submitted an affidavit, and had perhaps not been to®c include the more detailed information. When pointed this out to the Surveyor's staff, theyaffi& to meet the complainant and hear his evidffl* r than insisting on a further affidavit. This le approach satisfied the complainant, b grant was then approved. i-052 nee makes tax collector no fonder dividual complained to me that he had been ed a penalty for the late payment of his irty taxes. He stated that he fished commer- in the summer and only returned to his home l/hen he had a full catch. Normally, this was or July, but that year the fishing had been and he had not returned until August. He bis taxes as soon as he returned. iroperty tax notice sent to taxpayers each tates that a penalty will be charged if taxes (are not paid by the end of July. The complai- ivas not a new property owner and he had in contact with his family during the time he Ben away. In these circumstances, I did not it unreasonable to expect the taxpayer to ge his affairs so that his taxes were paid on 053 ile catches fisherman's motor rtsman complained to me that he was being for social services tax that he did not owe. d bought an outboard motor some three sarlier, and had not paid tax at that time. He ed the salesman had said his outboard was not subject to tax. fthe complainant wrote to us, social serv- ix collectors had tried on three occasions to j from him. At one point, they had even i formal debt-collection proceedings. Re- he had been notified once more that he $118.23. [investigated, I could not support the comfit's stand. Clearly, his outboard motor was Htotax. Social Services Tax Branch records t suggest the salesman had said that the ase was tax-free. I told the complainant that ajfing to the Social Services Tax Act he still B118.23. 054 >4 t on lake is home, taxman grants ily moved to their lake resort home in i|978 and lived there until the end of 1979. fe (co-owner of the property with her hus- phoned to the Victoria office of the Surveyor ss in April 1979 to inquire about eligibility for e Owner Grant. She was told that the house pot be eligible for a grant and so did not or a grant for the year 1978. However, she d for the year 1979. The Surveyor of Taxes the application. The home owner com plained to us that the Surveyor of Taxes had unreasonably refused the application. On investigation, I discovered that the Surveyor of Taxes had assumed that lake houses are necessarily summer houses, not permanent residences. I succeeded in convincing him that the assumption was wrong in this case. The Surveyor of Taxes then reconsidered the rejection of the grant for both the years. Ultimately he awarded the grant for each year. Thus the family received their lawful entitlement. CS 81-055 Timber tax An individual complained that several years earlier he had been improperly assessed logging tax on the sale of three parcels of land. The appeal period had now passed. I discovered that payment of tax was indeed required, and concentrated on whether the assessment had been fairly done. When land with timber is sold, vendor and purchaser usually state what portion of the price is for the land and what portion for the timber. As they had not done so in this case, the Ministry had ,done its own apportionment, using a fair market- value formula. On being notified that I had received the complaint, the Ministry reviewed the assessment and found errors, including the use of timber market values for the wrong year. The Ministry corrected this error and made a refund of $3,106. Because this reassessment was made, the complainant's right to question other features of the assessment revived. The Logging Tax Act now gave him appeal mechanisms including a right of review by the courts, and I discontinued my investigation. MINISTRY OF FORESTS Declined, withdrawn, discontinued 17 Resolved: corrected during investigation ... 6 Substantiated: corrected after recommend. 2 Substantiated but not rectified 0 Not substantiated 24 CLOSED—TOTAL 49 Number of cases open Dec. 31, 1981 -_i^sf In my last Annual Report I was able to note that despite its size and importance, I had received relatively few complaints about the Ministry of Forests. During the first fifteen months after my office opened, I closed 27 complaints pertaining to the Ministry. This year I completed 49, and carriecfa|j§ more forward into 1982. Thus the number of complaints investigated and closed has almost doubled, and the indications are that there will be a further increase in 1982. 49 There are a number of possible explanations for this increase. It may be that more people involved in forestry matters are becoming aware of the existence of my office, it may be that they have been given more cause for complaint, or it may be that the Ministry's public involvement program has raised public expectations and awareness. I am not concerned about this increase. I would emphasize that the number is still not high given the large number of people whose lives are in significant ways touched by the Ministry of Forests. One important trend has emerged: almost a third of the complaints closed in 1981 pertain to public input. In some cases the complainant expressed the need for some means of providing public comment on Ministry plans. In other cases complaints concerned lack of public information or dissatisfaction with the available public input process. The Ministry of Forests is one of the few Ministries to have initiated an approach to planning and management which includes a formal mechanism for public input. The public involvement program is a new one. One could expect that until it has been in operation for a while, wrinkles and inadequacies will appear. Some complaints appear to arise because people are not aware in what circumstances the Regional Director will be likely to choose a complex form of involvement such as a joint planning team, and in what circumstances only a consultation, such as a position paper, will be allowed. I commend the Ministry for its initiatives in the area of public involvement, but I would urge the Ministry to use the complaints about the process to develop and improve it. I would also urge the Ministry to distribute more widely information on how to provide public input. Eight of the 49 closed complaints dealt with delay on the part of the Ministry. Many concerned delay on timber sale applications under the Small Business Program. The Small Business Program is a new one, and again I recognize that some difficulties can be expected. But delay on such sales can cause small operators to go under. Their livelihood consists of cutting timber, and if they have to wait months to learn whether an area of timber will be put up for sale, their cash flow suffers. I have been told that the recent decentralization within the Ministry is responsible for a number of delays. By next year the new organization will have been in place long enough that decentralization cannot reasonably be blamed for such delays. I hope that this, coupled with refinements in the Small-Business Program, will result in fewer delay complaints next year. I had become concerned about the Ministry's policy of not notifying individuals of their appeal rights under the Forest Act. The Act contains a significant number of appeal provisions; however 50 the Act is long and its wording difficult. As a reS large forestry companies armed with theirjH lawyers are in an excellent position to appeaB cisions which they feel are unfair or detrimentaB their interest, but small operators are at a dism disadvantage. The Ministry appeared to fear an avalanclXf appeals 'if it were to provide notice of apjjlal rights. It also appeared to feel that it wouloB administratively difficult to inform the public about appeal rights. I do not agree. It has been my experience that notification encourages offjgBi to make more considered and careful decisigP. This in itself decreases the number of appeal. Other large Ministries have found that administer ing an appeal notification system is notW- possible. I consider it important that individuals be notified of their appeal rights, and I recommended thataffi Ministry adopt a policy whereby notice of aplal rights is given each time the Ministry maksH decision or issues an order which can be ap pealed under the Forest Act. . After much deliberation, the Ministry of Forests has agreed to implement my recommendaw, and has prepared a detailed notification form which will be provided to all those who might He occasion to appeal Ministry decisions. CS 81-056 To log or not to log Early in 1981 I received a number of compjMs about the Ministry's plans to permit log™) around Quesnel Lake. Some complainants '0p: posed logging the area altogether. Others were concerned about possible clearcutting as opposed to selective logging. Still others were concerned about plans to remove the timber and the possible contamination of the lake as a result. Some of the complaints came from individuals, while others came from groups. I learned that the Ministry had not made any decisions to permit or to reject logging the Quay Lake area. A proposal for logging had been drafted, and the Ministry had organized "storefi^if information sessions in two communities to advise the public about the proposal and to received comments on it. The Ministry stated that it wfflc not make any decisions respecting logging iiffire area until it had received and considered public comment on the proposal. Since the Ministry had not yet made a decisiojfr this matter, and since it had established a mean;; through which public comment could be recede and considered, I concluded that these com j plaints were unsubstantiated. I provided each o the complainants with information on the time anc location of the "storefront" sessions. •^ 1-057 sarch of a supply of wood owner of a small sawmill complained to me delays and apparent indecision on the part of Hry employees were preventing him from ob- <\g an adequate supply of timber for his mill. jnan had established the sawmill with the Stance of a Department of Regional Economic insion grant. After his initial supply of timber ©diausted, he applied for additional timber (S under the Small Business Program. _S/er, he found that long periods elapsed be- n application and auction, or that proposed es were rejected, even when the initial sugges- Hgrthe proposal had come from Ministry em- 8;es. He managed to obtain some small direct ■■but because the volume of wood was low, Mind his sawmill running continually short of ■f and his bankbook continually short of ns. nd that there was no means by which the l;try could guarantee him a supply of wood, tn fact no such guarantees had been made, ■also found, as he had stated, that his relation- .i] with the Ministry seemed plagued with de- Hand rejections of proposals and applications. Hronse to my initial inquiries, Ministry officials s;ed that they had met with the sawmill owner, ■had agreed to proceed with a Category II ■Business Sale in the area by October, 1980. [staff monitored the progress of this commit- Band found that the sale was delayed to Janu- ■/ 981. However, at that point the sawmill owner ifhe sole bidder and was awarded the sale at aft price. 11 this was a fairly large timber sale and would Bie sawmill a supply of wood for some time, I bred to discontinue my investigation of the ■Saint. B-058 x ige arithmetic in log salvage regs. Tan complained on behalf of log salvors Hghout the Province that Gulf Log Salvage Co- Btive Association had refused membership 11| salvors and that this refusal contravened the ■Salvage Regulations. The Ombudsman's ju- Btion does not extend to non-governmental as such as Gulf Log. However Gulf Log holds Having station licence issued by the Ministry Bests, and if the Association contravened the HSalvage Regulations, its licence could be tended or cancelled by the Minister of tats. o my investigation of the matter it appeared a he Log Salvage Regulations did grant log Hrs the right to membership in Gulf Log. One Bn of the regulations stated that any person who is engaged in or who has an interest in a business which manufactures, uses or deals in timber "is entitled to own not more than 10% of the shares in a log receiving station business". Certainly log salvors are engaged in a business which deals in timber, and Gulf Log is the only organization in B.C. to be issued a log receiving station licence. It became clear that the regulation was poorly worded. It could be interpreted as meaning that everyone in the province engaged in a business which deals in timber is entitled to 10% of the shares in Gulf Log; this would mean thousands of people were each entitled to 10% of the shares. The Ministry took the position that the intent of the regulation was to ensure that no one could acquire more than 10% of the shares of the organization. Since the regulation was absurdly worded, I concluded that it was reasonable for the Ministry of Forests to interpret the section according to the intention of the regulation. The Ministry therefore said Gulf Log had not contravened the regulations. The Ministry also advised that the clause in question would be corrected. The complainant had originally asked for my help in promoting the view that it is in the public interest to grant iog salvors membership in Gulf Log. In fact, I investigated only whether the regulations required that salvors be admitted as members. I told the complainant that the issue of whether regulations should grant membership to log salvors was one which should be decided by the Legislature. CS 81-059 Tree-spacing contracts clarified A man complained to my office that the Ministry of Forests had refused to return his deposit on a tree- spacing contract although a Ministry employee had stated that the deposit would be returned. The man, a contractor, had partially completed a tree-spacing contract when his employees demanded more money. The contractor discussed the matter with a Ministry employee and was advised that the Ministry could not provide additional funds, but that the contract could be cancelled with full return of the deposit. However, after the contract was cancelled, the Ministry refused to return the deposit; the contractor appealed the matter to the Regional Manager, but still was refused. My investigation revealed that the Ministry had acted properly in refusing to return the deposit, and that the Ministry employee who had said that the deposit could be returned had exceeded his power in doing so. The Ministry's silviculture manual clearly states that the deposit is not to be returned in cases where the cancellation is the result of the contractor's underbidding the con- 51 tract. The Ministry employee who had said the deposit could be returned was considered by the contractor to be responsible for the administration of contracts. However, although the employee was responsible for certain aspects of contract administration, it was not within his power to determine whether o,r not a deposit would be returned. His statement exceeded the powers of his position, and although apparently well intended, seemed to have stemmed from a lack of experience and a lack of knowledge of Ministry policies. Although the Silviculture Manual contained a clear statement of the circumstances under which deposits may and may not be returned, the contract document itself was considerably less enlightening, if not confusing. The Manual, a rather thick and very detailed document, is available to the public for a fee but since the contract is the basic document pertaining to the relationship between the Ministry and the contractor, it too should contain a clear and complete statement regarding the return of deposits. I recommended that tree-spacing contracts be amended to include information regarding the circumstances under which deposits will be returned, and the Ministry has advised that staff have been instructed to incorporate such a clause in contracts. I also recommended that the Ministry apologize for inadvertently supplying incorrect information, and the Ministry advised that the Regional Manager had conveyed his regrets to the contractor. CS81-060 Wrong either way in expropriation wrangle A man complained to me that the Ministry had expropriated a road through his deeded property, and had offered him an amount which he thought represented only a fraction of the value of the land The man returned the Ministry's cheque, had an independent appraisal done, and indicated a willingness to negotiate; however, the Ministry refused. The land was originally acquired in 1963 through a Crown Grant to the previous owner. There was at that time a trail through the property, and the terms of the Grant reserved all existing trails to the Crown. In 1974, the Ministry expropriated a right of way through the property. Before doing so, the Ministry advised the owner that under the terms of the Crown Grant, the Crown could resume 1 /20th of the total acreage without compensation. The Ministry offered the owner $1,500 compensation for his road, and later increased the offer to $1,700 In the meantime the land was expropriated. The owner subsequently had an appraisal done and retained two lawyers in an effort to reach an acceptable settlement; however, he did not succeed. 52 In response to his requests for negotiation*! Ministry took the position that because the Crown Grant reserved the existing trail to the Crown at the time the Grant was issued, the road was in facta public road and no compensation was duetojflsf owner. The Ministry again offered $1,700 in recognition of minor deviations from the original trail. Because of the passage of time, I was not able'jb determine whether or not the road expropriiH by the Ministry in 1974 was in the same locatiJM the trail noted on the Crown Grant. It certaiiy appeared that during the expropriation prociM ings in 1973-1974 the Ministry did not conH| the road to be in the same location as the AH since if it were, there would have been no need to expropriate. However, I concluded that whichever positipt^B Ministry took, some compensation was due to the owner. If the road were in the same location as the trail, there was no need for an expropriation™^ the owner was misinformed of his legal righfHJ the Ministry. If so, the owner should be paid for deviations from the original trail, and for his |f and appraisal expenses. If the road were in a substantially different location, the owner shHj receive compensation for his improvements^ interest. Since I was unable to establish which positioi^H' correct, I offered the Ministry two alternatives^© Ministry chose the position that there was a need to expropriate the road in 1974, and offere^H owner a total award of approximately $3.2®B, which included interest calculated from 1974 to the end of 1980. The owner was willing to accept this settlengjm; however, as it happened he sold the land at the beginning of 1981, when the offer was made. So after a six-year battle with the Ministry, the oww was unable to benefit from the final settlement. CS 81-061 Roadblock removed An Indian Band complained to me about the Min istry's inaction on a promise to assume reswi- sibility for a private logging roadsothatitcoui»e adeq uately maintained to serve the needs of |p residents. The road links several small comff- nities, and is at present privately owned byaffl- ging company. The logging company main«is the road to suit its own needs, with the resultjgP the road can become impassable when thtaHj- ging company is not using it. My complainlp said the Ministry had agreed to take over the road a year earlier, but had done nothing. I learned that there had been a number of rapt- ings concerning the road and involving thejgg- ging company, area residents and representatives of several Ministries. The Ministry of Forep i I indeed indicated a willingness to assume ponsibility for the road. They stopped working lis direction when one of the Indian Bands |se reserve the road crosses, stated that it was (prepared to allow a right of way for the road, discussed this matter with the Chief and ned that the Band had reconsidered its posi- and was now prepared to enter into negotia- 3 for rights of way. At his request we provided with the name of a person in the Ministry who jld be responsible for negotiations, and we ised the Ministry that the barrier which had rented them from taking over the road now [eared removable. 111-062 access, no exit, but no fault found an complained about the refusal of the Minis- f> gazette a "Fire Access" road so that he could the road for access to his property. man had spent his life's savings to buy a e of land and build a house. The seller had him that the road to the property was a Minis- if Forests Fire Access road and was available ublic use. However, during the winter the road ame impassable, and when he approached Ministry of Transportation and Highways about jitenance, he learned that at least part of the f was privately owned; the Ministry of Forests jirmed this. Further, the owner of the road reel to grant the complainant permission to use oad. Segal access could only be used if a 110 foot |je was built over a river. I learned that the {pus owner of the property (who had since B knew that this was the only legal access, knew that the owner of the private road had jed permission to use the road. Further, the had been deeded to the previous owner jgh a Crown Grant, which clearly stated that and was granted on the condition that the irn was under no obligation to provide access, lawyer who had represented my complainant ft he purchased the property had not advised B this condition, nor of documents on file with and Commissioner stating that the owner of private road had refused permission to use the as access to the property. B the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman does not nd to disputes between private individuals, b actions taken or omitted by lawyers in repre- ng their clients, I confined my investigation to Dropriety of the actions of the two Ministries bed. Both had refused to gazette or expropri- tie road on the grounds that to do so would ititute taking land from one private citizen to m another. As a general policy, I found this onable. Thus through a combination of misinformation and possible misrepresentation, the complainant finds himself in the situation of having to choose between building a 110 foot bridge or continuing to sneak through a poorly maintained and privately owned section of road in order to get to the home which represents his life's savings. As unfortunate as this situation is, I do not find that it was due to the actions of either Ministry involved. CS 81-063 Grazing permits: the right to be 'herd' The complainant alleged that the Ministry had unfairly refused to renew her grazing permit. The permit had enabled her to graze her cattle on Crown range lands; without it, her ranch was no longer a viable enterprise. The Ministry had not provided the complainant with an opportunity to present her case before an impartial individual prior to the decision not to renew her grazing permit. Before making such vital decisions a Ministry should allow individuals a full and fair hearing. The Ministry consulted with us and a new practice guide was drafted. Before a decision is made not to renew an individual's grazing permit, that individual will have made available to him all information in the Ministry's possession concerning his situation and will have the opportunity of a full and fair hearing before the Regional Manager of the Ministry and representatives of the local livestock association. The rancher will select at least one representative. The Regional Manager will make his decision only after he has heard the individual in full and has received the recommendation of the livestock association. I intend to monitor the development of this new procedure. MINISTRY OF HEALTH Declined, withdrawn, discontinued . 51 Resolved: corrected during investigation 21 Substantiated: corrected after recommend. 12 Substantiated but not rectified 0 Not substantiated 25 CLOSED—TOTAL 109 Number of cases open Dec. 31, 1981 _53 The Ministry of Health covers a wide range of activities which includes registering a birth, inspecting a sewage system and making payment for surgery. Its budget, and number of employees, are among the largest in the province. When this is considered, the fact the Ministry accounted for only six percent of the files I closed is a pleasant surprise. 53 While I am able to investigate most areas of health care, I am not able to investigate the people we most commonly associate with health—doctors. When section 11 of the Schedule to the Ombudsman Act is proclaimed I will be able to investigate the B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons, which is responsible for the standards of practice doctors maintain. I continue to receive many complaints against the Medical Services Commission. The Commission has been helpful in resolving these complaints quickly and fairly. Several complaints involved coverage for unusual medical services obtained outside the province. Refusal to pay in these cases often involves severe financial hardship. The Commission has agreed to provide a method whereby a person denied coverage can have the case reviewed. This process is described in the case report called "Surgery denied? Review now possible"—CS 81-068. I note that the dental plan is relatively new, and I have received few complaints about it. I received a number of complaints about the Ministry's telephone system. Frustrated callers could not get through until problems with the new phone system were identified and corrected. The Long Term Care Program was the focus of several complaints. Some involved allegations of inadequate procedures in the selection of home- maker agencies; "Homemaker rules need polishing"—CS 81-066 was one of these. The Ministry agreed with my suggestion that explicit guidelines be formulated on criteria for selecting homemaker agencies. I am also pleased that the Ministry has established an informal review mechanism for clients concerned with reductions in their hours of homemaker service. In the 1980 Annual Report I mentioned the need for changes to the Name Act and the Vital Statistics Actio reflect today's concern for the equality between men and women. I am anxious to see legislative changes in this area and have made the Ministry aware of my concern. Throughout 1981 the Ministry's staff has given my office a high degree of cooperation and assistance. CS 81-064 Nobody home We had several complaints that callers got no answer when they dialled the Ministry's toll-free telephone number. My investigation showed three reasons. First, during the postal strike, clients had made increased use of the phone. Second, the Ministry's new system still had technical problems, and the switchboard operator could not tell whether there were incoming calls. Third, the Ministry had a new toll-free number and it was not commonly known. 54 The two Ministries involved, Universities, Scieni and Communications (responsible for the projl cial phone system) and Health, • establishes, team to install more lines, publicize the new pljlH number, and look after future problems. CS 81-065 Privacy v. access to information A spokeswoman wrote to my office on behalf of £ local study action group, to complain that residents of the Salmon Arm area were unable tHjfl written confirmation of the results of certain tests done on their approved water supplies. The residents had provided samples of the local waremp the Ministry. I found the Ministry did not give written con firmation of the results, and residents waffim these results so that they could have a basisHi which to compare future results. I considered their request a reasonable one. The Ministry suggested that it would provideH- ten confirmation of test results to the residerHf the residents put the request in writing. Sinceffie Ministry considered the test results to be confidential information, a resident could obtain con- firmation of the test results pertaining to his oBr own water supply, and then could decide whether to make this information public or pass it on to the local study action group. This seemed to me a reasonable approach tdlne legitimate right of individuals to privacy andMe equally legitimate right of those same individuals to have access to information about matteijgpf direct concern to them. CS 81-066 Homemaker rules need polishing Two homemaker agencies in Greater VancoHr expressed concern about the allocation of home- maker contracts for service to Long Term ®fe patients in their area. One agency felt thatip- sessors, who decided what agency shoukage assigned contracts, were too powerful and cffld decide arbitrarily not to give contracts to a Sp- pany. The other agency felt it was being discffii- nated against in favour of others, and wanted to know why it was not receiving contracts, j Investigation indicated that there was a lack of explicit guidelines for assessors. New asse3jls were apparently trained by experience, ortpe job, and orientation was left up to the adminilg- tor in each Health Unit. This could lead to lacko coherent policy, as well as to the type of complaint I had received. Accordingly, I met with the Assistant Deputy Minister in charge of Long Term Care. This official recognized that my concerns were d, and thought it advisable to formulate blelines for the assessors. The Ministry agreed ake the lead in drawing up these criteria with jt from program officials in Vancouver. Finally, [Ministry agreed to circulate these to all home- Iker agencies, with the help of homemaker as- iations, and to send them to all Long Term |e administrators, with instructions to draw Inn to the special attention of their assessors. [suggested to the complainant that they give [[new criteria a chance to work and then, if |ner difficulties arose, to contact us again. B1-067 nfusion and misunderstanding ■raves of an elderly woman complained on her lalf that she should be getting more govern- 11 services. When we called the woman, she ■ she needed more homemaker services and i in paying for expensive medical dressings | stockings not covered by Pharmacare. ■spoke with the District Supervisor of Human sources, the Long Term Care Administrator, ■ the Administrator of the organization which lolied homemakers. It was agreed the woman's ids should be re-assessed. The Long Term p Administrator visited her for this purpose, ■informed her of the result. We also referred her rn officer at the nearest Human Resources i e who could determine whether she qualified lielp with medical purchases. iHvoman later called back for help in under- Eding her re-assessment. It seemed to her that Had been allotted many extra hours of home- ■er care and then been denied them. We Hd out this misunderstanding and also sug- jed she have a discussion with the Long Term HAdministrator on how the new arrangement, ■ided as a result of re-assessment, was work- ■ The Administrator also promised to put in ng an analysis of the woman's situation and ■j Term Care's work on her behalf, and to send Ii copy of the analysis. We told the woman that leal procedures were available if her care was ■satisfactory, and that if necessary we would ■ her set an appeal in motion. Later, the com- lliant asked our help in sorting out approval of Hfjal extra homemaker help. ■des helping the woman to get re-assessment ti o make contact with a financial aid officer, we ■ed her understand appeal mechanisms. Funis in response to her needs we made informal biact with a Director of her Regional District Bjpnal Districts are not within our jurisdiction) Hpassed to him information showing the need uius services in the area. CS 81-068 Surgery denied? Review now possible The Health Ministry makes decisions vital to the well-being of individuals, and often needs complex, technical knowledge to make them well. In some cases, the citizen helps to educate the Ministry, rather than the reverse. In such circumstances, the role of appeal or review is important. The complainant, raised as a male, had been living as a woman for five years. Work associates, doctors and specialists affirmed a healthy transition in lifestyle had taken place. Now surgery was required to complete the change. The surgery was only available in Ontario, and there was no universal agreement among doctors as to its merits. The complainant had applied for coverage by the Medical Services Plan. Coverage was denied because the treatment was not considered "medically required." However, this surgery is considered "medically required" by the health insurance systems of some other provinces. I was concerned that the procedures for assessing eligibility for coverage were arbitrary and unreasonable. I suggested that applicants denied insurance coverage for unusual or unorthodox treatment should be afforded an appeal. The Medical Services Commission agreed to establish an internal review mechanism and to notify persons denied benefits of its existence. I recommend that the Legislature provide an appeal mechanism in future legislation. In this case, the complainant successfully appealed and her surgery was covered. CS 81-069 Sewage system rejected A manager of a resort complained that Ministry officials refused to give him permission to install a package treatment plant for sewage disposal near the boundary of a lake. The manager thought the officials' decision was unreasonable because the package treatment plant was a sophisticated and effective way of treating sewage. Under the sewage disposal regulations a sewage disposal system must be at least 100 ft. away from the natural boundary of a lake. In this case, the complainant could not meet the 100 ft. requirement. Also, because of pervious soil conditions and a high water table, the local medical health officer asserted that the 100 ft. buffer between the sewage disposal system and the boundary of the lake was not sufficient. Finally, because the resort had a kitchen, the daily sewage flow would include grease. Sewage disposal regulations placed the responsibility for determining the conditions for the sewage disposal system with the medical health officer. 55 The medical health officer maintained that it was in the best interests of public health for the sewage disposal system to be located more than 100 ft. from the natural boundary of the lake. However, a citizen like the resort manager had the right to appeal the medical health officer's decision to the local board of health. He did this but the local board of health upheld the medical health officer's decision. As a result of my findings, I concluded the resort manager's complaint was not substantiated, because the Ministry officials had acted within their authority, pursuant to the sewage disposal regulations. Furthermore, the Ministry made its decision fairly, properly, and on the basis of relevant information. CS81-070 Ministry finds a way A physiotherapist presented a complaint on behalf of her patient. The patient had recently undergone a radical mastectomy and needed to use a special piece of medical equipment (a Jobst pump) on a regular basis to relieve the severe discomfort she experienced as a result of the operation. Unfortunately, the equipment was unavailable for loan in her area. She approached Pharmacare for assistance in buying the pump but found it would not provide coverage for medical equipment. The patient (a senior citizen with limited income) had to purchase the equipment with her own funds. The physiotherapist felt it was unreasonable for people to have to purchase expensive medical equipment. I contacted the Ministry of Human Resources to see why Pharmacare could not cover the expense. The Ministry explained that equipment used for the medical management of a chronic condition does not fall within the funding mandate of the Pharmacare Program. I then took the problem to the Ministry of Health. Officials there informed me that while the Ministry does not fund the purchase of equipment for individuals, it does sometimes fund equipment for hospitals or nonprofit societies such as the Canadian Cancer Society. I then contacted the local Cancer Society. The executive expressed interest in having the equipment available to loan to clients and said they would apply to the Ministry of Health for assistance in purchasing the equipment. In reviewing the Society's request for funding, the Ministry of Health recognized that others who have undergone similar surgery appear to need increased access to such equipment. In response the Ministry has funded the Cancer Control Agency's purchase of several pumps for loan throughout the province. 56 Tl CS 81-071 . . . and get me to the church on time A complainant wanted a new marriage licencB her maiden name. Since her lawyer had used her ex-husband's name on her divorce decreelH new licence would ordinarily be issued with this last name on it. The wedding ceremony was a week awavBB investigator contacted the officials at the DivlH of Vital Statistics. After hearing the particulajH cumstances of this case, the director authorial an amendment to the marriage licence if tlffi was a sworn affidavit and support documents!!, ifying that the complainant had regularly usedifr maiden name. The documents were quickly supplied and wedding bells rang. CS 81-072 No-nonsense nuns and the fine print A brother in a religious order, acting as spoHj man for nuns in a second order, complained that the sisters had had their Medical Services Plan premium assistance wrongly terminated. Premium assistance was available in 1981 toiS' pie whose taxable income was below $17Jii' was not, however, available to people whose "Wat cial status" exempted them from paying any income tax. The Ministry had discovered thafJEe Income Tax Act granted an extra deductioMo members of religious orders who, like these nps, were under vows of poverty, and had concl'f| that they had "special status". We showed the stry that they had misunderstood the Income \i\ct. The nuns were liable to pay some income |and were eligible for premium assistance. J Ministry changed its general interpretation Kerning people under vows of poverty. Further, Instated the nuns and refunded the premiums lhad been wrongly charged. llNISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES Ined, withdrawn, discontinued 174 lived: corrected during investigation 126 i.tantiated: corrected after recommend. 5 ;tantiated but not rectified 1 [substantiated 85 CLOSED—TOTAL .... 391 ber of cases open Dec. 31, 1981 99 |81 I received 391 new complaints about the try of Human Resources. Considering the e of services provided by Human Resources, umber of employees (approximately 5,000) he number of people who use the Ministry's bes (as many as 500,000 at any given time), I |t consider this number excessive. i of the complaints are "crisis complaints" ring immediate action. In such cases I must i>n the prompt attention and cooperation of an Resources' field staff. Generally I have wed this cooperation and complaints are Scly resolved. However, for complaints that issues beyond individual concerns (for ex- jb, the right to information about appeals), the bss of arriving at a resolution has been much ar and more difficult. I attribute this at least in 0 the complexity of the issues involved. Oc- jnally there are significant cost implications, blaints against this Ministry fall into three 1 categories: Come Assistance jst year, the Ministry's income assistance pro- is accounted for about half the complaints. s ranged from denial of a benefit to access prmation. Complaints about the extent of an idual's financial benefits can be appealed gh the Ministry's appeal system. Therefore, ly providing the complainant with information b appsal process often allows me to discon- piy investigation because an adequate re- is available, wss by clients to information on the Ministry's Hal process continued to be a problem this ■While the Ministry agreed in 1980 to take Rto improve the flow of this information, the Der of complaints I received in 1981 because Hmplainant was unaware of appeal rights lated that further action was required. I pro- Id that the Ministry display in all district offices ;; a simple, readable poster describing the appeal process (see "Appeal information revisited"— CS 81-077). The Ministry has since implemented my proposal and I look forward to finding that a greater number of clients can understand and exercise this appeal option. B. Family and Support Services About one quarter of the complaints involved family and support services, from daycare subsidies to family counselling or child protection matters. For these complaints the Ministry has no formal appeal mechanism, although an administrative review of some decisions can be requested by the client. Several of the complaints I have received this year have focused on the need for a formal appeal mechanism in this sensitive area. Following my request, the Ministry has now established a review procedure for foster parents who disagree with the Ministry's decision about the care of a foster child. Further, the Ministry will now develop a review procedure for people who find their names are on the Ministry's Central Registry of Protection Complaints as detailed earlier in this report. I have found Ministry representatives sensitive to family needs, especially those of children. Complaints generally arise when the Ministry's assessment of the family's needs differ markedly from the family's own assessment. Particularly when the issue is one of child protection, the complaint may already be before the courts, with family members looking for extra help from me or seeking clarification of the Ministry's procedures or mandate. When the problem is before the courts I do not intervene except to provide information and referral. C. Health Services I received a number of complaints about the Ministry's Health Care Services and Pharmacare Programs. The issues ranged from the criteria used to define a "handicapped person" to the denial of coverage for essential medical equipment or sup- plies (see "Hearing on hearing-ear dog"— CS 81-086). The denial or reduction of a health care service is appealable (in the same way as an income assistance decision). I normally refer complainants to the appeal process first. However, I have some concerns about the procedures used in the appeal process, particularly as they relate to issues of health care, and I am presently discussing those with the Ministry. I hope to be able to report some improvements in this area for 1982. CS 81-073 Fostering fairness The foster parent of a special-needs child complained that the child had been taken away from her suddenly and without reason. 57 Community service workers had complained to the Ministry concerning the level of care provided to the child. There was some truth to the concerns about the youngster's physical surroundings, although the foster parent's home provided satisfactory emotional support for the child. Accordingly, the foster parent's case worker started to prepare her for the eventual removal of the child and began a search for a different foster home. While that worker was away on holiday for a few weeks, the Ministry suddenly removed the child from the foster parent and placed the child in an institution. My investigation supported the Ministry's decision to remove the child, but found the manner of removal to be arbitrary and unfair The hurried decision did not consider the efforts of the social worker who was preparing all parties for the change. The Ministry's undue haste created bad feelings On my recommendation a Ministry repressntative apologized to the foster parent for removing the child so abruptly. The Ministry also agresd to send a representative to discuss the possibility of some continuing relationship with the child. I also acknowledge a very useful contribution by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association to this case. CS 81-074 Care bill paid twelve years too late A foster father complained that the Ministry of Human Resources reneged on an offer of an additional $500 to settle his claim in providing care. He further complained that the child was ap- prehendsd and hs was denied access. The complainant and his wife are Indian. In 1964, a mother gave them her non-Indian baby to raise as their own. He and his wife say they firmly believed the child was now theirs according to Indian adoption custom. When the Ministry learned that a white child was living on an Indian reserve, it ordered her into the care of the Superintendent of Child Welfare. However, the child remained in the complainant's home on a "free home basis" for almost seven months; the complainant did not receive payment for her care. When the child was removed from the home, the foster father requested compensation in the amount of $9,120.30 for expenses incurred for the care of the child. Since he had voluntarily assumed custody without legal basis and since he did not ask the Ministry for their endorsement of the placement, they took the position that they could pay only for the seven months after the committal. The Ministry paid $1,060.30 and promised a further $500, which the father never received. 58 Although there was a further complaint that access to the child was denied, the child was adopted in 1968. The Ministry can no longer gH access; we limited our work to investigatingft question of the missing $500. I considered the Ministry negligent in not prbw- ing full payment. The matter was rectifiedlfe Ministry issued a cheque to the complainanjp $500 plus twelvB years' interest. CS 81-075 Rule change keeps family together A mother of three young children complained that because of a clause in the Community Care Faciei ties Licensing Act, she might be forced to send one child to a separate daycare home, or haSp three walk two miles along a highway to the ffii- est licensed daycare resource. The children were currently in a suitable but un licensed daycare home. Ministry staff toldBe mother that under the Act, unless a care-giwms licensed, she can take only two children. The mother argued that this clause should not applyto children all from one family. In her case, a subsidy was also at stake; the Ministry of HumanMe- sourcss could only provide this subsidy iffle children were in a form of daycare allowed by the Act. I spoke with Human Resources and with thefti- istry of Health, which has responsibility foiffiie Community Care Facilities Licensing Act. I found that people in the ministries had the same concern as my complainant, and had arranged to have an amendment to the Act proposed. However, they believed the amendment had not] yet come into force. I called the Attorney General's | Ministry and found the amendment had come into force the day it was passed. Human Resources and Health immediate™i- formed their staffs of this change. The mother, ano other parents of more than two children, had their, problem solved. CS 81-076 Daycare office cares for parents too A parent complained that because she wcfflec during office hours and had no car she wa^n able to keep an appointment with the Ministry! Daycare office to have her eligibility for a daycare _ subsidy reassessed. As a result, she believed she would not receive the subsidy and felt thiafe unfair. On inquiry I found that her subsidy woult be honoured if she made another appoinyiP within the month. This resolved the individual complaint, but I con tinued to be concerned about the more genera question of accessibility to the daycare office. Ignized that many government offices are Ikble only during normal working hours and agenerally people can adapt to this limitation. over, it seemed to me that every effort should Itade to snsure maximum accessibility within m hours. In this case, accessibility was ham- In in several ways. 1 the office was not in a central location. Bid, staff at the office were only available on a ■time basis. sly, lunch appointments could be booked only 112.00-12.30. Ised these issues with the Ministry. They wed that there was a problem with accessibility ■said they were making a number of improve- lis. They had hired an extra worker. Further, ■would now accept appointments through the hi hour. Finally, they were searching for a new, d centrally located office, le steps satisfied me that the Ministry was ■ipting to resolve the problem. tt -077 Hal information revisited H1980 Annual Report I described a complaint irived in which an income assistance recip- Bas not told of his right to appeal a Ministry Bon on the extent of his income assistance Bits. On investigation, I found that the pro- leres used to notify clients of their right to ap- Hwere inadequate. I therefore made several Bjmendations to the Ministry on ways which I jould increase client access to information on pal rights. The Ministry agreed to implement llcommendations and I therefore considered Batter resolved. 1131 I again received a number of complaints [■■aich Income Assistance recipients appeared Be no knowledge of their right to appeal deci- [I on eligiblity or benefits. In investigating Ik new complaints, I found that the rec- ■■endations on access to appeal information I Meade in March, 1980 had not been fully im- Bented though it was more than a year since I wnade them. Tin raised the issue with the Ministry, which ajnded that because of Human Resources' Haing rate structures, they had found it difficult pblement my earlier recommendations. I then IHmended that the Ministry design a poster IHning the appeal process and that this pos- m hung in all district offices. The Ministry id to implement this recommendation. pleased that the Ministry acknowledges the lance of clients having full access to infor- n on their rights. I will continue to watch to friether use of this poster gives clients the foiation they need on appeals. CS 81-078 Ministry remedy too late A single parent's 16-year-old daughter ran away from home and the mother immediately reported the daughter's absence to her social worker. The worker informed her that her income assistance benefits would be immediately reduced by over $200 because the daughter had left the family home. The complainant felt this was unreasonable because with $320 (the amount she would receive after the reduction) she could not maintain her apartment, thereby virtually ensuring that her daughter could not return home. A member of my staff discussed the complainant's problem with several Ministry officials. All agreed that she was in an extremely difficult position, particularly as she had just moved from Prince Edward Island and was realistically concerned about her daughter's safety in the "big city". With this in mind, the Ministry agreed to extend the complainant's shelter allowance at the rate of two people for another month, to give the family time to sort out their situation. Unfortunately, the complainant had already given the required 30 days' notice to vacate her apartment by the time this decision was made and was therefore forced to move, despite the Ministry's change of position. Thus, although the Ministry offered an ordinarily acceptable remedy for the complaint, circumstances dictated that the remedy could not rectify this complainant's problem. I therefore consider that, in this case, rectification of the complaint was not possible. CS 81-079 Which bureaucracy takes responsibility? A non-Indian family which had been living on an Indian reserve and receiving income assistance for ten years complained of injustice when the Ministry refused further benefits to them and to anyone else living on reserve land. The background to the problem was that the Ministry does not generally fund social programs on Indian land; that is the responsibility of the Federal. Government's Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, or of the Indian Bands themselves. However, this family had been receiving income assistance at the same location for a number of years. Our discussions with the Ministry convinced them to reinstate the assistance because a 1978 Federal-Provincial agreement could be applied. According to that agreement, status Indians living off the reserve could receive benefits as though on the reserve, while non-Indians living on the reserve could receive benefits from M.H.R. as though off the reserve. 59 CS 81-080 Income assistance wrongly assessed A retarded girl who moved from Woodlands School into the community complained that she received less Handicapped Person's Income Assistance than she was entitled to receive when living under Community Living Board sponsorship. After discussions between my staff and the Ministry, it was determined that the assessment of her eligibility was incorrect and that she had been underpaid. The problem was resolved when the Ministry arranged through the local office to make up the underpaymsnt. CS 81-081 Computers are only human A mother involved in a custody dispute contacted my office in alarm. Her social assistance cheque had been discontinued because she had been reclassified as employable. Her concern focused on the possibility that she might be forced to give up custody of her child if it were establishsd that she could not support the child properly. I encouraged the woman to make use of the appeal method provided in the Ministry. When she did so it was discovered that she had been re- classifiBd incorrectly by the Ministry's computer. She should have been classified as unemployable and granted a higher amount of assistance. The error was quickly rectified and a supplementary cheque was issued to the relieved mother. CS 81-082 Religious beliefs and income assistance A young man contacted my office to find out what rights he would have if his income assistance were discontinued. He said his financial assistance worker had said that his benefits might be discontinued if he refusBd work on the grounds of religious beliefs which prevent him from working on Saturdays. The complainant was informed of the requirements under the GAIN Act that an applicant actively seek work and of his right to appeal if his assistance were discontinued. Further, since he was alleging discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs, I provided information on the role of the Human Rights Branch in looking at allegations of discrimination. The complainant later contacted my office to report that the Ministry has since indicated that his benefits would not be discontinued. We have had a number of Human Resources complaints similar to this one in which complainants 60 ask us not to intervene but rather to confirm » understanding of Ministry policy and procediigs, Once the "rules of the game" are provided, the complainant is often able to resolve the problem on his or her own initiative. CS 81-083 New procedure safer for clients An elderly man came to my office with a lettertie had received from the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters Program (SAFER). The letter said heflti received an overpayment of $517.50 but he tSc not understand how this was possible. SAFER records showed that the overpayment was made based on information they had fronrBhe complainant's original application; he reportef he was living in a hotel. Since then he had moved and he was not aware that he should have reportegfiis change in rental costs to SAFER. I arranged a meeting between the complaSnl and SAFER where officials explained to hirrwiy he was not recsiving SAFER benefits. SAFER was in fact reclaiming the overpayment. Ordinarily SAFER would have cut his benefit cheque by a few dollars a month until the repayment was complete. Since the renter was now spending lessfoi rent than he had in the hotel, he was entitled only to $15 a month from SAFER. SAFER found impractical to hold back a sum smaller than $15. The renter could expect his cheques to begir again when the $517.50 was repaid if his s®us remained the same. Inthisway, too, SAFER hopec to avoid a further misunderstanding during the course of repayment if the complainant's sratui changed again. The complainant was satoec with this explanation. During discussions with SAFER and the complainant, it became apparent that certain elderly clients do have problems in giving SAFER acclpte current information. At the same time, it wa^b- vious that SAFER was not equipped to checKpc re-check all client's statements. The officeilp. SAFER was like Revenue Canada Taxation, ilpa it accepted clients' reports of income and exj penses and only occasionally verified them, (©is a year, of course, each client had to make a re application and supply up-to-date informatior about income and rent. Partly as a result of these discussions, the Mirjstr, of Human Resources began to review someo SAFER's procedures. Clients likely to have prob , lems were identified so that SAFER officials cot* ( pay more attention to their statements. SAFEF also reviewed some of its correspondence anc practices, in order to suit them more closely to the needs of its elderly clients. JJ IS1-084 ret directive spoils job chances Jjicial worker, a former employee of the Ministry, ■plained that a secret "do not rehire" directive 1 spoiling his chances of re-employment with ■Ministry and that this was unjust treatment, ■lough the complainant had had disagree- ints with one supervisor, his five years of service llbeen adequate overall. But when he applied iDermanent re-smployment, he was unsuc- Kful, and he was finally told that his file con- led the negative directive. He then complained le By opinion the complaint was valid. The practi- Bjfect of a directive such as this one is that no Her how questionable the information it is led on may be, or no matter how much the licant has improved his skills since, he is shut forever from re-employment. Bier, there is a problem of procedural fairness ■secret directive. This complainant never knew nhis applications were rejected. In I pointed out this unfairness, the Ministry Bed to attach a memo to the personnel file liting selection panels to consider not just the Bliqible judgment, but the whole work record. [^Ministry also agreed to make sure that if the Iplainant applied for a job in his field, he would Bvited to an interview. rl3 were several similar complaints. I recom- Hded to the Public Service Commission that it tte the question concerning eligibility for rehire I its personnel form, and the PSC agresd. -085 je benefits of Ombudsman investigation ^sociation for physically handicapped peri-complained about a contractual problem |he Ministry of Human Resources. Though we | the complaint to be unsubstantiated there an interesting sidelight to the episode. investigator who handled the complaint is dated with a church funding group and I C during the course of his investigation, he led of the work being done by the associate brought it to the attention of the funding j %. As a result, the church group made a grant 100 to the association. £ -086 < ing on hearing-ear dog n come assistance recipient who is deaf and itlicomplained that Human Resources had re- is jl to provide her with a special allowance for Be of her dog. She said her dog is vital to J ^_ maintaining her independence and fills a function similar to that of a seeing-eye dog. Income Assistance recipients can receive a $35 monthly allowance for maintaining their seeing-eye dogs. Therefore, she felt it was unfair that she was not eligible for a similar allowance. The complainant, who was unaware of her right to appeal this decision, was referred to the appeal process. Further, I arranged for a lawyer to represent her in that appeal. The appeal tribunal unanimously decided to grant the allowance to the appellant. MINISTRY OF LABOUR Declined, withdrawn, discontinued 18 Resolved: corrected during investigation... 8 Substantiated: corrected after recommend. 1 Substantiated but not rectified 0 Not substantiated I _8 CLOSED -TOTAL 35 Number of cases open Dec. 31,1981 15 Excluding those complaints registered against the Labour Relations Board and the Workers' Compensation Board, I received during 1981 thirty complaints against boards and branches of the Ministry of Labour. Reports on the boards of review, the tribunals that hear appeals from decisions of the Workers' Compensation Board, are, for convenience, included in my section on the 61 Workers' Compensation Board, although the boards of review are in fact responsible to the Ministry of Labour and are independent of the Workers' Compensation Board. An amendment to the Employment Standards Act which specifically permits disclosure of documents to the Ombudsman has overcome the inconvenience I earlier experienced in conducting investigations in this area. Cooperation by officials of the Labour Ministry has generally been good, although there have been isolated cases in which I have had difficulty in obtaining responses to queries. I feel that these difficulties were not the result of negligence or indifference on the part of Ministry staff so much as a consequence of heavy caseloads within certain areas of the Ministry. CS 81-087 Credit where credit is due When a complainant tried to get credit from a local department store, he was surprised to discover that he was not considered credit-worthy A check with the Credit Bureau disclosed that the root of the problem was an outstanding certificate registered against a company he had once owned. The certificate alleged failure to pay the wages of two employBBs. Ths irony was that neither employee had ever worked for his company; they had worked for a company with a name very similar to that owned by the complainant. As he had not yet contacted the Employment Standards Branch directly, the complainant was advised to do so. When the error was brought to that authority's attention, corrective measures were quickly taken, and the complainant's good credit rating restored. CS 81-088 Labour is sorry The complainant was attempting to claim wages be believed were owed him by his employer. He contacted the Ministry to assist him but was, he said, given conflicting information by Ministry peopls. He was also treated in a discourteous manner. Investigation showed that the complainant was given unclear information and that the complainant had been the recipient of uncomplimentary remarks from one of the employees of the Ministry. The Ministry sent an apology to the complainant and processed his claim. CS81-089 You can't contract out of this law A woman operating a stone quarry'business negotiated ah agreement with an employee. She agreed to pay him a certain amount for his labour 62 plus a percentage to cover fringe beneM However, when the employee terminated his employment after several months he complaineaB the Employment Standards Branch that heW not received sufficient vacation or holiday pay from his former employer. The Branch invjjfi gated the matter and supported his claim.181 woman was required to pay the ex-employee tjm $1,000 and complained to me about ai decision. The woman's error lay in her belief that because she had a verbal contract with the employee, she was free to make whatever arrangement seemed mutually agreeable. Although I sympathized with the woman's plight I found the Branch was correct in determining that the quarry worker was an "S ployee", not an independent contractor Under statute, an employee must be paid general B day and vacation pay. According to Court decisions an employee h^ contract "of service". An agent or indepenSt contractor has a contract "for service". A raw layer who is employed by a bricklaying firfB work on its various contracts and under its ^» eral superintendence has a contract of sen/m whereas a bricklayer hired to construct a specific wall for a fee has a contract for services. The structure of this employee's work situation made him the holder of a contract of servffi, entitled by statute to holiday pay. For a well-intentioned businesswoman, this incident provided a costly lesson in labour standards. CS 81-090 Human Rights Code and harassment A woman complained that the six-month limitation on reporting allegations of discrimination tame Human Rights Branch, particularly when the allegation is of sexual harassment, is unreasonable. She argued that it often takes victims of sexnal harassment a long time to recognize that they have been subject to such harassment andffiat once recognized, it takes a further period to decide to take action. Her point was well-taken. However, I found thafjhe six-month limitation is imposed by the Human Rights Code itself, not the Branch. Therefore||p- islative change will be necessary to alter theme period or to waive it in cases that require special consideration. As ths Human Rights Commission has responsibility for reviewing the Code to ensure that its provisions effectively meet its intent, I referred the matter to the Commission for their considerawi. The Chairperson of the Commission has sjjjce informed me that the Commission has unanimously agreed to request legislative review and change. I n very pleased with the Commission's re- lise, and look forward to the implementation of I;hange. [MINISTRY OF LANDS! PARKS AND HOUSING Bned, withdrawn, discontinued 17 .(jived: corrected during investigatiofiL 26 Istantiated: corrected after recommend. 3 Ktantiated but not rectified 0 (substantiated 31 JCLOSED - TOTAL ... 77 Hber of cases open Dec. 31, 1981 56 Us, Parks and Housing is a large, diverse Min- ■with a number of programs and objectives. In icising its mandate, which includes the man- Hient and allocation of Crown lands in British Hmbia, it is involved in nearly all resource use b;s in the Province. Inr the largsst proportion of complaints ware [led against the Regional Operations Division, Hh is responsible for the adjudication of land B-ations and for the administration of existing itres. in accordance with established Ministry ily. The operations of this Division are de-cen- aied. Decisions affecting existing tenures and Bpjudication of land applications are normally Bsponsibility of the eight Regional Directors, Hugh an appeal of the decision of the Regional He on a land application is available to ag- Hed applicants. In most cases, an applicant ie requested to exhaust his available appeal He within the Ministry before an investigation is pfi:ed by this office. H| may be sevsral reasons advanced for the [loportionate number of complaints received Hf the Ministry's land management and alloca- IHecisions and procedures carried out by the Hpnal Operations Division. In recent years |J has been an increased public demand for re n land and over five thousand new land ap- jijjtions were received by the Ministry in 1981. IBer, this factor alone cannot account for the IBbant proportion of complaints about the Re- pa! Operations Division. For example, sub- ■Hally more applications were received in 1981 L.ie Home Purchase Assistance Branch, al- 103h considerably fewer complaints were ■as against this Branch than against the Re- ■dil Operations Division. Several reasons for this discrepancy are immediately apparent. The Home Purchase Assistance Branch, which provides financial assistance to new homeowners, is constrained to adjudicate applications under the provisions of the Home Purchase Assistance Act and regulations. This legislation is quite specific and affords little room for discretion in the adjudication of applications. Legislation governing the allocation and management of Crown land, which is the function performed by the Regional Operations Division, allows considerable discretion for the establishment and implementation of policy by the administrators. Specific recurring problems involving the Ministry's land application policies and procedures are fully addressed in an earlier section of this report. My office has had good cooperation from the Home Purchase Assistance Branch and all complaints received against the Branch were either resolved, abandoned, or not substantiated. Both the Manager of the Home Purchase Assistance Branch and the Eligibility Committee established under the Home Purchase Assistance Act have demonstrated their readiness to discuss fully outstanding complaints. Future investigations involving this Branch of the Ministry may lead to a suggestion that greater discretion be provided to the Eligibility Committee established under the Home Purchase Assistance Act to determine eligibility for benefits where unforeseen or extenuating circumstances are shown to exist. This suggestion was considered but not pursued in an investigation summarized below ("Homeowners get their grant"— CS 81 -100), as another acceptable resolution was negotiated. Mobile Home Registry complaints have involved the Registrar's refusal to effect registration of two mobile homes. However, the refusal in these cases was based on the applicants' inability to provide a satisfactory record of title to the mobile homes back to April 1, 1978, the date when the Mobile Home Registry Act came into effect, providing for the registration of mobile homes. I am pleased to report that this year the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing has initiated a program designed to meet the commitment for replacement land given to individuals displaced by the Libby pondage 10 years ago. I had addressed the problem of Libby pondage displacees specifically in my 1980 annual report. While the fact that the Ministry has initiated such a program is encouraging, it remains to be seen whether a satisfactory resolution will be obtained for remaining displacees, as there are serious disputes about conflicting resource use which will have to be resolved with other Ministries for the program to be a success. The benefit of the program to remaining displacees will depend largely on how 63 committed the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing is to promoting their interests with other Ministries. Other Ministry action which was the subject of several complaints involved requests that compensation be paid because of losses suffered by the complainant as a result of a change in Ministry policy, restricting commercial activity in designated provincial parks. As a result of a recent decision of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia it appears that some of these complainants, who had mining claims within provincial parks which they were later prohibited from exploring, will now be in a position to claim compensation for their demonstrated losses. -Ministry personnel at all levels have been prompt in providing required information and are readily accessible to discuss and consider resolutions of complaints. CS 81-091 The battle of Buckley Bay Buckley Bay lies close to the centre of Baynes Sound, which is a sheltered 25 km stretch of water between Vancouver Island and Denman Island, yielding about 60% of this Province's oyster production. Many people were therefore pleased by a news release of July 1980, in which the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing announced a three- year moratorium on the establishment of new shoreline log-dumping sites on Buckley Bay. However, the release also announced a "review and approval by the Minister of an application by MacMillan Bloedel for log dump and storags facilities at Buckley Bay". The announcemsnt of this approval was the first that many area residents had heard of the matter. Dissatisfied with the information they were able to obtain from the Ministry, a number of them formed the Baynes Sound Protection Committee (B.S.P.C), which petitioned the Minister to hold a public hearing to review the reasons for and against the proposed facility. This was refused. I received complaints from B.S.P.C. and others that the Minister had made his decision without requiring that the lease application be advertised first, and that there had been no prior opportunity either for public discussion or for objection to the proposal. Many people, including neighbouring oyster growers, felt they would be adversely affected by the presence of the dump site. Does procedural fairness require that a Ministry inform such persons of the proposal and hear their objections before it makes a decision? My investigation revealed that under its existing policy, the Ministry should have required the applicant to advertise the basic proposal. When the Minister's decision was announced in July 1980, 64 the application had already been under con™ eration for 19 months without the Ministry's requiring the applicant to advertise. Hearings (under what is now s.59 of the Land Act) had been held in the past on similar issues, where there were similar grounds for objection and where the numbjM objectors was far smaller. One Branch of the Ministry of Environment had strenuously opposeqH application, and some other agencies had expressed concern. A senior official in the Ministry had apparently ignored a report from the District Land Managerwhich predicted public oppotsmH and concern, and which recommended that Mate- Millan Bloedel be requested to advertise its application. MacMillan Bloedel had been refused a similar application a few years before, becaujHa the environmental degradation which had previously occurred as a result of the firm's operat^H at the same location. I concluded that procedural fairness had not been observed towards the complainants wheraB] Ministry made its decision to approve the MacMillan Bloedel application, and I recommendeB January 1981 that the Ministry take appropH^ steps to rectify this omission. Several accept^H courses of action were suggested, but the Ministry's eventual response was to require the firm, in April 1981, to advertise its proposal in the local press, to hold a public viewing of its plans, and to recalculate the costs of certain alternatives to the Buckley Bay facility. In my opinion the adverti^p was by now a mere formality, and the other steps taken did not really address the basic problem, yet the Ministry appeared unwilling to do anyttB more. As I was considering further steps, MacMillan Bloedel resolved the matter by withdrawing its application. According to a news releaseffll withdrawal was due solely to economic conditions, and was completely unrelated to myinsgi tigation. If that is the case, I must humbly ackrgH edge the support of Higher Powers in bringing™ matter to an acceptabls conclusion! CS 81-092 One head lopped from many-headed Hydro In January, 1981,1 received a complaint froimjjg president of an environmsntal protection gw| that the Ministry was refusing to provide his g|K and a number of other interested organizafW and individuals with an effsctivB opportunraffi oppose a B.C. Hydro application. B.C. HydrdKj applied to construct a road for access into the Stikine area in connection with exploratory work for a proposed dam. The complainant alsoKj jected to the Ministry's refusal to force Hydro tc provide an environmental impact assessffl study. The concerns of these individuals and groups were substantial. They claimed that the proposec |to a wilderness area would have a detri- effect on local food supply, trapping and g income, Native land claims, and on the 3 environmsnt in general. bted unsuccessfully to arrange for the Min- I participate in a forum in which objectors bice their concerns. Then I informed the t Minister that I was considering a recom- fion that representatives of the Ministry's al staff call or attend a public meeting to ! objectors with an effective opportunity to Hrd. bruary 26, 1981, B.C. Hydro's only out- g access application - for a "cat-trail" to posed dam site - was disallowed by the |l Director of the Ministry's Skeena Reg ion. is givsn by the RBgional Director included I environmental impact and strong public l|on. fiistry has an internal review body which ; the Minister. Known as the Land Applica- peal Committee, it was established to an independent review of Regional Oper- jecisions on land applications. As it ap- jikely that B.C. Hydro would appeal the i /ance to this body, I wrote to the Deputy r and recommended that the objectors i also be given an opportunity to be heard i Appeal Committee. I also recommended [Ministry hold a public hearing or provide b Iher suitable opportunity for the hearing of d|ns, if Hydro re-applied for access. i Duty Minister declined to commit the Min- "public review in considering a new ap- laiTi by B.C. Hydro. He told me that the Chair- he Appeal Committee had been informed v BWS. May, 1981, the complainant told me that dro had appealed the Regional Director's H fance and that a hearing of the appeal was it. We met the Chairman of the Appeal fee and sent a letter to the Deputy Minis- | recommended that the Appeal Commit- [consider reversing or modifying the Re- pecision without giving the objectors an | opportunity to be heard. I emphasized jllowance had been largely based on en- ntal impact and public interest concerns {natural justice demanded that persons elng these concerns be given an oppor- ytl defend them. Iputy Minister replied that only an ag- Iapplicant was entitled to be heard in a •k y the Appeal Committee. If public input ■sn considered advisable, the procedure (lave called for public meetings before an idit was permitted to act on a land use iiion. On June 4,1981, the Minister decided to disallow B.C. Hydro's appeal and required the corporation to meet certain conditions before a new application would be entertained. There was no requirement among these conditions that Ministry personnel hear objectors, despite the fact I had recommended that objectors be given an opportunity to challenge the accuracy of Hydro's information and otherwise express their concerns. I therefore informed the Deputy Minister of my continuing dissatisfaction and advised him that I would be reopening the case in the event of a new application by B.C. Hydro. However, since the Minister had rejected the application by Hydro that was the immediate concern of the environmental protection group, I suspended my investigation until I got another complaint. Another application was subsequently submitted by B.C. Hydro and a further investigation is now being conducted on this issue, and in respect of several new complaints lodged by the residents' group. CS 81-093 Crown land: battle with elusive rules The issue in this complaint was whether the Ministry was acting unreasonably or unfairly by permitting other individuals to participate in a competition for a parcel of land staked out and applied for by the complainant. This complainant had been engaged in a long, eventful struggle with the Ministry in an attempt to obtain a parcel of unsurveyed Crown land in the Queen Charlotte Islands for a homesite and small agricultural operation. After he had exhausted all his available appeals within the Ministry and 15 months after his original application, he complained to my office that the decision made by the Minister to hold a closed competition for the Crown land was unfair. Seven months after his original application, the complainant was told by the Regional Director that the land which he had applied for was previously under reserve and could not therefore be made available without a public competition. The complainant had been advised by the District Manager that the application was disallowed because the land was not considered arable and had informally appealed this determination to the Regional District of the Ministry's Skeena Region. The second letter of disallowance, from the Regional Director, was based on both the finding of non-arability and on the requirement for a public competition. The complainant next appealed to the Land Application Appeal Committee, which is an internal review body that advises the Minister. It is intended to provide an independent review of land 65 THE- > CO \l eRMMENT BOR&AUCRACY HALS B£COl^M a A /v\oiJSTe.R.' ■N»a?MaS.6.NS|3. &>/£Ryaa'ME WEa. EA/\Pt-oy is aS.-SSie.MTl JaU TO This. Sjvm-'oth Ru INl Ol I 1-1 a3 OF Th?-- ISuAH !-»_,: ■■'''•©t a/.t-Llaa- Reprinted with permission—The Toronto Star Syndicate. application adjudications. The Minister found in the complainant's favour on the question of arability, and decided to dispose of the land. He gave two reasons for requiring the public offering. During a time while other would-be landowners were forced to wait for completion of a Crown land plan which would permit the parcelling of land for sale, it seemed inappropriate to sell this one parcel directly. Also, the land had once been under reserve. The complainant argued that the requirement for further advertising and public bids was unfair as he had previously advertised his intention to acquire the parcel at the request of the Ministry and there had been no response at that time. The Ministry compromised by advertising its intention to dispose of the land and by requiring all respondents to establish that they had previously expressed an interest in purchasing property in the area, in order to establish their eligibility to participate in the auction. I was unable to conclude that the Ministry's requirement for a closed competition in this case was unfair. However, I informed the Ministry that I was concerned that the complainant was not informed of the necessity of a public competition until approximately seven months after his application for the parcel was received. My assistant was advised by the Assistant Deputy Minister that the vast majority of ad hoc land applications are disposed of directly to a qualifying applicant and not by way of public competition. The only public notice required in most applications of this type is a published notice of the applicant's intention to acquire the Crown land. Even this requirement is discretionary under the Land Act. At the time of the application the complainant had not been given to understand that a public competition might be required. Although I was not able to agree with the complainant's view that the parcel should be disposed of directly to him, this complaint brought to light problems in the Minis- 66 try's procedure for making application for Crown land, particularly for agricultural uses. CS 81-094 Land is available—until you try to buy Six months after the complainants had applieBr a parcel of land and after they had gone to ccw- erable trouble to obtain the necessary approft of various referral agencies, they were adviseaBv the Ministry that the land could only be dispBd of by public competition as it had been previcHy held under a reserve from alienation. During the processing of their applicationlne complainants had been informed by a Mirny representative in the local office that they should be able to purchase the property as long as approval for the disposition of the land was giveffiiy all referral agencies. On the strength of this in standing, the complainants had enthusiastic involved themselves in the land referral process, and had successfully resolved the objections and impediments presented by several referral agencies. Aftertheir enterprise and success in obtaining the necessary approvals, the complainants weredis- j mayed to learn that the Ministry had decided to | hold a public competition, if and when a decision ] was made to dispose of the land. The complainants had written to the Minister to object. The Minister affirmed the Region's decision and added that the policy of requiring a public competition was designed to afford an equal chance to any interested persons who might p* applied in the past for the previously reserved lands. I was concerned. The complainantsjlp- plication was underway for almost six monthsbe- fore they were advised that the land would have to be disposed of by public competition, and during this time the complainants had, on the strengjo' inaccurate information, gone to considerable trouble to obtain the necessary approvals. I there fore suggested that in future applicants be notified at an early date when the land applied tor must be disposed of by public competition^ (Deputy Minister replied that the local office r learned about the reserve on getting status ■ irance information from Victoria. The Ministry led to install a computerized information ac- ts system in regional offices in the future. I] Ministry has a goal of deciding whether to lept a land application within 120 days. There- K they begin several processes - field examina- :s, land statusing, and referrals to other agen- I; - all at once. In order to prevent future llicants from being frustrated as this one was, (Deputy Minister instructed staff to discourage llicants from trying to get approvals from refer- ■agencies before the Regional Director had a j)rt on the status of the land. He also decided to ■[this complainant first choice of lot in any ■division developed. This was his own idea; I I not suggested it. ■Instructions issued to field staff and the pro- Isd computer land statusing in Regional Of- |> appeared to provide an adequate remedy to sissues of procedural fairness raised in this D plaint. I therefore decided that a satisfactory lilution of the complaint had been reached and x;omplainants were happy to learn that they [it yet benefit from their efforts. h-095 ost a lot when they broke their promise rmer B.C. resident complained that the Minis- f Lands, Parks and Housing had failed to live sits commitment to give him a chance to buy a pific lot of Crown land in the Kootenays. He recently learned that the lot in question had p promised to another individual, contrary to irances given to him by the Ministry that lots in area would be disposed of by public petition. complainant had originally applied for the lot J74 and his application was disallowed. The r of disallowance stated that the area was iously held under reserve. In accordance with artmental policy, Crown lands previously held it reserve must be disposed of by way of iiiic auction. The complainant was advised that 1 spection of the lots was being undertaken at if me and that if the report were favourable, due : ;e of the auction would be given and the de- \ pent would attempt to contact the complai- personally. ■complainant subsequently moved to Oregon, I fig a forwarding address. During a visit to the r_ in 1979, he learned that commitments had i made to sell several lots, including the one a! anted, to individuals who had made ad hoc i ications. He quickly expressed his objections |nistry personnel and eight of the outstanding i Ications were disallowed, including the ap plication for the lot for which the complainant had previously applied. The Ministry subsequently advised the complainant in writing that it now intended to dispose of the lots by public lottery and that he would be notified when the arrangements for the lottery had been completed. In August, 1980, an exchange took place and the lot which the complainant had applied for was committed to one of the individuals who had been promised a lot in 1979. The complainant learned of this and contacted my office to object to the arbitrary and unfair manner in which he had been treated by the Ministry. I discussed these findings with the Regional Director, who claimed any suggestion that the Ministry had acted unfairly or had any obligation to apologize to the complainant. It was therefore necessary to pursue the matter formally at a more senior level. I advised both the complainant and the Deputy Minister of my findings and my recommendations that an apology be sent to the complainant and that the Ministry notify him of any future sale of similar Crown land. The Deputy Minister agreed that the complainant had been treated unfairly and instructed all Regional Offices not to promise personal contact in future, to prevent this problem from recurring. He also expressed his hope that a letter of apology would suffice and requested that I be more specific in my second recommendation. The complainant, on the other hand, felt that my recommendations were inadequate and considered that he should be entitled to buy a lot of his choosing at a reduced price. While the complainant's position was understandable, I decided to limit my recommendation to a letter of apology and a commitment by the Ministry to notify the complainant of land in the area he was interested in. The complainant had lost a promised opportunity to participate in a public competition for the lot but it is quite possible he would not have won the lot at the auction even if the Ministry had kept its promise to him. The thrust of my second recommendation was therefore to restore to the complainant the opportunity he had lost. However, after the end of 1981, when I had completed my investigation and submitted my recommendations to the Deputy Minister, the Ministry made my complainant an offer he is pleased with: another suitable property in the area he wanted, and at 1979 prices. CS 81-096 Saving sea-park proper, refusing reasons not A man who was trying to acquire unsurveyed Crown land was told to advertise this intent in his local newspaper and The British Columbia Ga- 67 zette. While his advertising was underway, he contacted the District Land Commissioner who told him his application had been denied. On the complainant's request, the Commissioner promised to forward reasons for refusal and information on the method of appeal. A month and a half later, the information had not arrived, and the would-be landholder complained to us. The Commissioner agreed to send us and our complainant the information. We asked our complainant to get in touch again if he had further problems. Incidentally, the reason his application had been rejected was that the land he wanted was part of a marine recreational area reserved for public use. CS 81-097 You pay your money, and they forget your title A man in Sardis complained that the Ministry had delayed in providing him with title to land he was buying from the Crown. The complainant had sent the purchase price, at the Ministry's request, on August 15, 1980. His subsequent letters to the M i n i stry's Regional Off ice to ask when the transaction would be completed went unanswered and on May 25, 1981, he wrote to my office about his problem. We telephoned the Regional Office on June 2, 1981 and were told the office would speed up the complainant's Certificate of Purchase and the preparation of the Crown Grant. A letter was sent by the Regional Office to the complainant the same day, confirming this information and apologizing for the delay. We were told by the Regional Office that the Crown Grant could only be issued from Victoria and that this could take from four to six weeks. We discussed the delay with the Regional Office. Then the individual responsible for issuing the complainant's Crown Grant agreed to push the grant through within two or three days of receiving the necessary documents from the Regional Office. We told the complainant what we had done to remedy the problem; he was satisfied with the solution. CS 81-098 Taking the land into your own hands I received a complaint that the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing was acting unfairly by refusing to grant the complainant a recreational lease of Crown land on Hudson's Bay Mountain and by requiring him to move the cabin which he had erected on the property. The complainant felt that the Ministry had wrongly refused, for many years, to comply with a public demand to release Crown lots in the area for recreational purposes. Based on this belief, he had 68 constructed a cabin on the area without obtaining authority to do so. My staff learned that development in the area had started about 15 years ago, when persons occupying the land on mining claims began unlawfully constructing cabins. Action was taken with respect to these unlawful occupations in 1973, but through the intervention of their MlJ| the cabin owners were successful in obtainirlt recreational leases to legalize this occupation of Crown land. Reasons given by the Ministry for declining to start orderly development of the area related to health and pollution problems associated with the very shallow soils in the area, lack of access in winw and the need for an overall plan for development of the ski hill as a recreational area. The complainant did not accept these explanations and felt that the Ministry should have marketed the land. On the basis of these beliefs and in light of the government's previous legalization of unauthorized occupations of Crown land in the area, he started construction of the cabin. Several days after construction started, he was told by the Regional Office of the Ministry to stop constructicHj face legal action under the Land Act. The complainant was originally given a 30-day deadline to remove the cabin. The time was later extenM nine months through the intervention of the complainant's M.L.A. The complainant continue^H feel that the Ministry should lease him the property and contacted my office for assistance sewB months before the expiry of the second deadffi set by the Ministry. No suggestion was ever made to the complainant that his occupation would be legalized and the Ministry took action soon after it learned of his activities. As the Ministry had not misled the complainant and as he had no legal authority to occupy Crown land, I concluded that his compHE was not substantiated. The Ministry had nowffi cided to consider restricted marketing of land in the area, and agreed to make whatever arrangement was possible to relocate the complainants cabin if lots were sold. CS 81-099 Almost doesn't count for First Home Grants An individual complained that his application fora First Home Grant had been unfairly refused bythe Ministry's Home Purchase Assistance Branch. The complainant had bought his first home for $71,500 and the price limit in effect at the dated purchase was $70,000. Price limits for homes eligible for grants and loans under the Home Purchase Assistance Acme established by regulation, and are subjecljo periodic review. The complainant had arguedtpat the price limit imposed by regulation was \_W II unfair, as he could not have bought a home hat amount. In view of the small difference Iveen the price of the complainant's home and ■ maximum price limit, I disagreed with this liment, and concluded that the complaint was ■5ubtantiated. |H-100 r, leowners get their grant ■complainants, a native couple, had been re- sd a Family First Home Grant because the lie Purchase Assistance Branch received their lication 10 days after the one-year deadline Bribed under the Home Purchase Assistance (According to the Act and its regulations, an Hcation must be received by the Minister Bin a year after the homeowner takes sipancy. He complainants' home was on an Indian re- K the Home Purchase Assistance Branch re- Hd that their Band Council confirm that the H| was entitled to the land and occupied the B. The complainants had submitted their ap- x tion to the Band Council office soon after they Bccupied their home, but as a result of errors Bnisinformation on the part of the Band Coun- Hce, the application was not forwarded to the >.3 Purchase Assistance Branch on time. Nine II before the expiry of the one-year limitation, Bomplainants took matters into their own ts and sent in a second application, without Rquired Band Council resolution. Since the Be had done everything in their power to com- ai'ith the one-year limit, it appeared unfair to Hi them their grant. Bet with the Manager of the Home Purchase Htance Branch and the Director of Housing Tarns. I suggested that the Band Council Hi be deemed an agent of the Ministry for the ttnses of receipt of an application. Under this Bretation, the complainants would have w application well within the one-year time Bon. ■eligibility Committee agreed to approve re- wand processing of the application. IHomplainants were very pleased to learn of secision and were finally issued a grant. I-JNISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS Hied, withdrawn, discontinued 7 ?sved: corrected during investigation 4 Mantiated: corrected after recommend. 1 IHantiated but not rectified ... 2 pjjbstantiated.. „.- H LwLOSED—TOTAI 25 pf >er of cases open Dec. 31,1981 .18 Local government probably affects directly a larger number of'people than any other level of government. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs has varied responsibilities concerning cities, districts, towns, villages, regional districts and the boards and commissions related to these bodies. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs is divided into two Departments: Deputy Minister for Planning, Policy and Ministry Services and Inspector of Municipalities who has Deputy Minister status. In the case summaries which follow, I will explain my limited authority in local government matters (see "Rezoning blocks view; lack of authority blocks Ombudsman"—CS 81-101). A high percentage of the complaints I received related to the office of the Inspector of Municipalities and the investigations carried out under his direction. Complaints about the lack of proper investigative techniques seem to have been caused by an increased work load. The reason for the increased load is that more citizens, believing their local governments have treated them unfairly, have demanded intervention by the Inspector of Municipalities. The Inspector of Municipalities assures me that he will have more trained investigation officers in 1982. This should help alleviate the problems. Throughout 1981, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs' staff has given my office a high degree of cooperation and assistance. CS 81-101 Rezoning blocks view; lack of authority blocks Ombudsman A husband and wife complained that Municipal Council had failed to follow the steps demanded by the Municipal Act tor rezoning land. They and their neighbours opposed the use of nearby land for multiple-unit buildings. They believed there would be traffic congestion, a change in the character of the neighbourhood, and a blocked ocean view. The Municipal Act requires public hearings when rezoning is planned. Notice is given to nearby owners and newspaper ads are placed. The complainant told me there were mistakes in the advertisements and in the notices they were given and that therefore the rezoning violated the requirements of the Municipal Act. They were not satisfied with later attempts to correct these deficiencies. Although the Ombudsman Act designates municipalities as an "authority" subject to investigation, the Legislature has not yet proclaimed this part of the Act in force. Therefore, I have so far no juris^, tion to investigate the decisions of municipalities or comment on the fairness of their actions. When a complaint that is beyond my jurisidction comes to me, I try to suggest an alternate remedy. 69 In this case, I suggested the complainants take their grievance to the Inspector of Municipalities. They asked him to overturn Council's rezoning decision. The Inspector investigated and replied that despite the mistakes in the notice and advertisements, no one lost the chance to be present and be heard at the public hearings. Therefore, his office would not act. I am powerless to help except by reviewing the investigation carried out by the Inspector, and considering the restricted jurisdiction vested in his office in matters of this kind, I accepted the results of his investigation. If the portion of the Ombudsman Act concerning municipalities had been proclaimed, I could have conducted an investigation myself, and not have had to rely on the efforts of another party. CS 81-102 Restructure of boundaries After a poll to approve restructuring of the boundaries of a town, some voters complained that the poll had been designed to support the opposite decision from the one they wanted. Their complaint was based on a misunderstanding which good communication might have prevented. The town council had received several requests from rural land owners that the water distribution system (which was owned by the town but situated in the rural area) be upgraded in order to serve their needs better. A committee was appointed by the town and the Regional District to study the question of restructuring the boundaries of this town in order to meet the wishes of the rural residents. The committee comprised six voting members (three from the town and three from the rural area) with Ministry of Municipal Affairs' representatives acting in an advisory capacity. The committee sponsored public meetings in order to answer questions from the public. After a year of deliberations, the committee requested that the Minister of Municipal Affairs hold a referendum in the area described by the committee, with a view to establishing a new, incorporated community. The Minister complied with the request of the Committee by appointing a Returning Officer and directing that a poll be taken in the area designated by the committee. The Minister has the legislative authority to direct the procedures for the poll that is taken and he directed that the area be divided into two polling divisions. The Returning Officer, who had authority to make local arrangements for the vote, then decided that the voting for both divisions should be held in one room in the Town Hall and 70 that a different colour of ballot would be used for each polling division. The ballots cast by the town voters and the rural voters would be unmistakaW separate. The Returning Officer did not explain to the public the procedural decisions she and the MinM had made. As a result, some residents interprgH the procedures at the polling station as indicami that a majority in each of the two polling divisions must separately vote in favour of the propoH extension of boundaries before incorporalB would take place. My investigation revealed that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs acted according to legislativt^B quirements in the holding of the referenduirnB I have suggested to the Ministry that in the future, the public be clearly informed of the rules under which a vote is being taken so that there will be no misunderstanding of the procedures used in the process of restructuring boundaries. Because of this and other complaints, I have begun a separate study into the problems associated with municipal restructure and boundary extension and I will be reporting the outcome of the investigation. CS 81-103 Inspector's investigations inspected Through my investigation, I substantiatecHfl complaint of a B.C. resident that the Ministry- of Municipal Affairs did not properly investigate the problem which she had brought to its attenB Under the provisions of the Municipal Act, a« son who is not able to obtain a supply of water from an irrigation or water district may appeal to the Inspector of Municipalities, Ministry of Municipal Affairs, who, after investigating the complaint, may intervene on behalf of the aggrieved party. If the person is not satisfied with the investigam procedures utilized by the Inspector, my o® may then examine this aspect of a complaint.' The chief deficiency in the procedure adopted by the Ministry was that the complainant wasfB interviewed at the time that the Ministry contacH the irrigation district officials. The Ministry accepted my recommendation Mm implement a fair investigative procedure policy. Such a policy would establish three rights for a complainant. First, the complainant must begijpn the opportunity to be heard or interviewed be®re a determination is made. Second, reasons for decisions must be given and each complaint 'e(wt an answer from the Ministry. Third, there must not be unreasonable delay in carrying out the investigation. lis case, subsequent contact with the com- iant revealed no new evidence that the irriga- district had treated her differently than others milar circumstances. i the new policy in place, future complainants tow assured of a fair hearing as the Ministry of licipal Affairs meets its statutory investigative lonsibilities. |1-104 itenance of fire hydrants Hiseholder informed me that her Fire District Ithe several Water Districts within it were argu- :about whose job it was to maintain fire [rants. As a result the hydrants had been left ■paired for two years. The Ministry knew about [squabble but had not done anything to get it Isd. The complainant was, of course, worried .her hydrantless district would be in serious I)le if a major fire broke out. Insulted the Ministry, the Fire District and the H Districts. All agreed a solution must be Id, so I arranged for them to meet. A member B staff attended the meeting and it was soon Bed who should service and maintain the Bnts. ■-105 sying inspection amounts to inaction arson wrote to the Inspector of Municipalities ■77 and asked the Inspector to investigate an «ed conflict of interest on the part of an elec- jfficial. The allegation concerned the conduct Member of a Municipal Council as it related to Kid holdings in the municipality and the sur- j jing area. The Inspector of Municipalities did answer the letter which requested that a pub- [quiry be held into the matter. ^frequently, the person complained to my of- [eibout the delay in obtaining an answer from a specter. My investigator discussed the mat- r) th the complainant and with the Ministry of Jicipal Affairs officials. I found the complaint Ilfantiated. However, I concluded that be- |k of the extended delay in receiving a re- Be from the Inspector, it would be difficult to avan inquiry which would ensure that all facts :i be accurately recalled. ■■.particular complaint could not be rectified. H|er, the Inspector of Municipalities has as- ftl my office that now practices within the Min- [rjiave been changed so that the public will no Hr be required to wait an unreasonable period tie prior to having action taken. IJ MINISTRY OF PROVINCIAL SECRETARY AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES (Not including PSC, Superannuation, and GERB) Declined, withdrawn, discontinued 6 Resolved: corrected during investigation 2 Substantiated: corrected after recommend 0 Substantiated but not rectified^ 1 Not substantiated _4 CLOSED—TOTAL 13 Number of cases open Dec. 31, 1981 9 CS 81-106 "First Citizen" gets bursary A young non-status Indian complained that he had been unreasonably denied a bursary from the First Citizens' Fund Student Bursary program. He had come to work in British Columbia from Manitoba in 1973. Later, he enrolled in post-secondary institution and was from 1977-1981 a full- time student. He believed that he would be able to receive repayment of his Canada student loan through the First Citizens' Fund Student Bursary Program. However, when he applied to the Advisory Committee, he was granted repayment only for the 1980-1981 academic year. In 1969, the Legislature made provision for the Minister of Finance to use the interest on the First Citizens' Fund to pay amounts for the purpose of "the advancement and expansion of the culture, education, and economic circumstances and position of persons of the North American Indian race who were born in and are residents of the Province". My investigation revealed that in 1979 Provincial Government and Indian people began to consider it discriminatory that Indian students who were born outside the province but become residents of British Columbia were ineligible to be considered by the First Citizens' Fund Advisory Committee. Some exceptions were made during and after 1979. By the 1980 school year a new policy was in effect allowing bursaries to be paid on the basis of B.C. residency. I suggested a relaxation to allow the young man to receive the assistance he had expected. The Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services agreed and his student loan for 1979-80 was repaid for him on compassionate grounds. 71 CS 81-107 Innocent until proven guilty A junior stenographer had been suspended without pay from her job in a cabinet minister's office after criminal charges were laid against her. After the charges were dropped, over a year passed and, still jobless, she complained to me. The complainant's lawyer wrote to her former employing Ministry and informed the Ministry that charges against her had been dropped; he also inquired about the complainant's employment status. The Ministry replied that a reorganization of the public service had taken place and that the complainant's position was now part of the Ministry of Finance. The Ministry also advised that copies of the lawyer's letter had been sent to the Ministry of Finance and to the Chairman of the Public Service Commission. Five months later, the complainant had heard neither from the Chai rman of the Public Service Commission nor from the Ministry of Finance. She wrote to the Public Service Commission and once more inquired about her employment status. After another six months she was interviewed by a personnel officer with the Ministry of Finance. She was told that, because she had been away from the job for so long, she would have to undergo a typing test. No prospects for a job were held out. Finally, the complainant contacted my office, and I made preliminary inquiries. It turned out that the complainant's position, following government reorganization, was not with the Ministry of Finance, but with the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary and Government Services. It became evident that the position had never been filled with a permanent incumbent since the date of the complainant's suspension. The Ministry of the Provincial Secretary and Government Services interviewed her and offered her work. I conducted no formal investigation into this matter and I am therefore not making a formal finding. However, after the complainant was re-employed, two problems remained. The complainant was unemployed and without an income for almost 17 months while criminal charges were pending against her. The provisions of the Public Service Act permit suspension of a public servant while criminal charges are pending against him or her. However, there is some discretion as to whether such a suspension should be with or without pay. Because this complaint was settled without a formal investigation, I am not sure what criteria are applied by the Public Service in deciding on whether a suspension should be with or without pay, or indeed whether criteria exist at all. I intend to make this question the subject of a separate investigation. The complainant was also unemployed and without an income for another 16 months after criminal 72 charges against her had been dropped. THJ appeared to be no reason for not re-employingH complainant immediately. I was able to negoffi a settlement of $11,000 to compensate the elf plainant partially for loss of income she suffered during this period. MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION! AND HIGHWAYS Declined, withdrawn, discontinued 88 Resolved: corrected during investigation..... 48 Substantiated: corrected after recommend^R Substantiated but not rectified o Not substantiated _..» 50 CLOSED—TOTAL 192 Number of cases open Dec. 31, 1981 78 I again received a substantial number of complaints involving the Ministry of Transportation™ Highways in 1981, About two-thirds of the complaints received involved the Highways Division of the Ministry, while most of the remaining thirdSt- cerned the Motor Vehicle Branch. Complaints about decisions of the Motor Veffie Branch are often resolved, due in large part tame excellent cooperation received from the Branch. A number of cases which remain open concern the procedures employed by the Branch in suspending, or refusing to issue, drivers' licenctBn medical grounds. The Superintendent of Motor Vehicles has a statutory duty to satisfy himself that every person given a driver's licence is medically fit to drive safely. Under current procedures, the Branch makes these decisions on the basis of the guidebook published by the B. C. Medical Association. I am concerned that where a person and his doctor believe that he is an exception to the general rule, that his particular medical condign will be reviewed by a panel of medical speciaHs. The Branch has agreed with this principle and is currently undertaking substantial changes in its procedures for dealing with these cases. ■ I would like to emphasize the high degree of coop eration and assistance I have received from the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles and his staff. Responses to my findings and/or criticisms are candid and well-reasoned. As might be expected, it is much easier to resolve compia|s and issues which arise out of my investigatps where the agency actively participates in fineffia solution. Complaints involving the Highways Division oBe Ministry have been more difficult to investigate and resolve. Much of the difficulty in this area arises from the fact that the Ministry's respon- lities to construct, repair and maintain the pub- highways network are not defined by statute rather, are left at the discretion of the Ministry, s a complaint that the Ministry has refused to Irade a certain public road is difficult to find [er substantiated or not substantiated. The istry has no statutory responsibility to do such k, yet one must presume that the Legislature Wdes the Ministry with its sizeable budget at t partly for the purposes of upgrading and ■htaining the public road network. Generally Baking however, Ministry officials and, in par- liar, local staff have sought to provide the pub- Ivith good service and resolve those com- Ihts which do arise. Brticularly difficult problem which is currently iter investigation involves claims by the Ministry I certain roads are public roads. According to WHighway Act, if public money has been spent Ii private road for purposes other than snow- It ghing, that road automatically becomes a S ic road. Did the Legislature really intend that i s be expropriated without compensation be- 3;e, for example, they were graded a few times sy years ago? I have written to the Ministry as a sit of receiving many complaints on this issue, ■ I may be making recommendations in the lie 1-108 ight to buy back land freely sold eband and wife had sold their property to the Stry of Transportation and Highways almost ty years ago. At that time, the Ministry be- id that the property would be required for ways purposes and had approached the plainants to acquire the property. The prop- had never been used and the complainants plained to me that the Ministry refused to sell iroperty back to them. other part of this Report, I discuss the Cuth- case which involved very similar circum- ces. But in that case, the Ministry had actually opriated the property, whereas in this case, omplainants had voluntarily sold their prop- D the Ministry. Because of this, I did not feel ; ne Ministry was under any moral obligation to he property back even if it was no longer r fed, and I concluded that the complaint was Instantiated, property had been expropriated, or if the i|try had led the complainants to believe that had no choice but to sell their property, I i have probably concluded that the property id be returned. lase raises another issue. Do property nego- JMor the Ministry of Transportation and High- a| always properly inform persons from whom fwish to purchase property of their legal rights? Until a property has been expropriated, the owner retains the right to refuse to sell the property. Is the owner advised of this or is he led to believe that he has no choice but to sell his property to the Ministry? I hope to investigate this issue in the coming year. CS 81-109 Ministry cleans up mess During a visit to Nelson I received a complaint that the Ministry of Transportation and Highways had failed to restore the complainant's ranch to a usable condition after expropriating some gravel for highway construction. We contacted the Director of the Construction Division of the Ministry and brought these complaints to his attention. The Director told us that he was planning a visit to the Kootenays and that he would visit the complainant's ranch and take a first-hand look at the situation. He said he would ensure that all commitments made to the complainants were kept, and that the property would be returned to an acceptable condition. We discussed this proposal with the complainants, who agreed with the suggestion. I encouraged the complainants to contact me if they were unable to work out a suitable settlement with the Ministry. As it appeared the Ministry was willing to negotiate a settlement, further investigation was not necessary. CS 81-110 Smoothing out the bumps An individual had owned a small rural property for some years, but had great difficulty in gaining access to the property because of the condition of the adjacent public road. A sawmill used a portion of the road and heavy machinery had caused the road to deteriorate to such a state that it was impassable. The individual complained that the Ministry of Transportation and Highways had not properly maintained the road. The Ministry of Transportation and Highways has an obligation to ensure that all public roads are both safe and passable. Obviously, the standard to which a road is maintained is a matter of discretion and depends very much on the amount of traffic using it. However, where a public road provides the only access to an individual's property, I believe the Ministry has an obligation to ensure that the road is usable. In this case, I brought the complint to the attention of the District Highways Manager and Highways' crews did the needed work in the few weeks following. 73 CS 81-111 Water, water everywhere During 1981, I received three similar complaints about flooding to the complainant's property caused by water running under or adjacent to a public road. Each complainant told me that the Ministry of Transportation and Highways had not taken the necessary steps to ensure that this water did not flood the complainant's property. I worked on the principle that the Ministry had an obligation not to divert a natural watercourse in such a way that it damaged private property, but had no obligation to divert a watercourse from its natural location to prevent such damage. In two of these cases, I discovered that the watercourse had flooded the complainant's property during heavy rain even before the construction of the public road. In constructing the public road, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways had not altered the natural watercourse, but had instead merely placed culverts under the public road in order to let the water course follow its natural route. In these cases, I concluded that the Ministry had no obligation to prevent the flooding of the complainant's property. In the third case, the public road had been constructed along the base of a large hill. It acted as a collection device for natural runoff flowing down the hill. The road had collected all of these small streams and rivulets, and channelled them through a single culvert under the public road and onto the complainant's property. As a result, the complainant's property had been eroded. It was my tentative opinion that the complainant had a legitimate claim to the Ministry for compensation for the damage caused to her property, but because the Ministry of Transportation and Highways Act provided the complainant with the statutory right to arbitrate the Ministry's refusal to pay her compensation, I concluded that I had no jurisdiction to investigate her complaint. I was required by the Ombudsman Act to refer her to the arbitration procedure. CS 81-112 Heads Crown wins: tails you lose A young couple had bought a half section of Crown land in the Peace River area some years ago. As a condition of their purchase, they were required to construct a road on the public right of way which provided legal access to their property. This they did at considerable expense. Recently they tried to divide their half section into quarters so that they would be able to sell half at some future time. The Minister of Transportation, acting as the approving officer, refused to permit the subdivision until they had constructed another public road to provide access to the other quarter. 74 The complainants argued that they were gettHj stuck at both ends: both as buyers and as sellers they were made to build roads. I found that the complaint was not substantial First, it was not unfair that the Crown had origifjH required the complainants to construct a public access road to their property, since the price they paid was low because the property did not have a public access road. Second, the fact that the Ministry now required them to construct a public access road to the second quarter was not unfair; because this was a requirement placed upon all subdividers (except the Crown) and the cost could be passed on to the purchaser. It has IB been policy in this province that individuals who wish to subdivide their property must provideH| cess to all newly created parcels. In this fashion, the persons who benefit from the access road, pay for that access road. The Crown historically has not been requireHJ provide lands sold with a public access road. This has created problems as is illustrated by the next complaint. CS 81-113 Private dispute not solved with public funds A farmer had for years obtained access to his property, which had originally been bought without access from the Crown, via a private road across his neighbour's land. As a result of a dispute, the neighbour had withdrawn his permission for the complainant to use the road. Consequently, the complainant had asked the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to creatHI public road to his property, and the Ministry^p refused. I discovered that there were really only three people who would be affected and that two of trig people did not want a public road. I therefflg agreed with the Ministry that it was not in the public interest that a public road be constru^B at the taxpayers' expense. It seemed to me that if the complainant wanted unrestricted access to his property, he should be prepared to buy the necessary right of wayfflE one of his neighbours and pay for the co^EE constructing a road. This would increase therm| ket value of his property, and he would probably be able to recover the cost of construction when he sold the property. For the above reasons, I concluded that the complaint was M substantiated. CS 81-114 L'examen en francais We dealt with two similar complaints involving problems experienced by French-speakingopsi- dents of the province. The first case was brought I is by the concerned acquaintance of a fran- none who had been unable to obtain his air- i :e driver licence during the two years since he I come to live in B.C. He had worked in Quebec (professional truckdriver, but was now forced brk at a lower-paid job, because he had been ■ale to pass the written airbrake licence exam jiglish. My staff arranged with the Superinten- II of Motor Vehicles for the man to take the In orally with the aid of a French/English lonary. lie second case, the B.C.-born wife of a Ich-speaking immigrant from Europe con- lid my staff to complain that no service was Ig provided in French. She said that immigra- ■officials abroad had assured her husband ■he would be able to function quite well in lada if he spoke French or English in addition Is native tongue. She had offered to act as I later during the written exam, but had been led. After some discussions with the Superin- b=nt's and the local Motor Vehicle Branch of- kit was arranged that a local French-speaking ttiolteacher would act as translator The pch obtained references, was assured that the lie did not know the teacher personally, and flthat the couple would have to pay any fees ■red. aliscussed with the Branch various ways of jig with such problems. The Superintendent othat translators had been used in the past, lad not been satisfactory: they tended to over- 3je licence applicants and they influenced 3;sults. Finally, I recommended that the driver a ai and the written exam be provided in a llual edition. Since the MVB was concerned 1st cost factors, we obtained estimates for mating and printing; these were quite reason- ilf However, the Ministry referred the matter to a biet Committee, rather than implementing the pnmendations, suggesting alternatives, or a refusing to accept them. After several ans of waiting and following up with the MVB, I :3ed to close my files. I am not satisfied with ?)jtcome of the overall issue, but appreciate f|jperintendent's efforts on behalf of the indi- liul francophones who originated the com- ii3. especially in this time of nationalism and lldian unity. 115 : I gets foreign licence back 11 complained that he had been required to der his foreign driver's licence to the Motor e Branch upon application for a B.C. one. id the Motor Vehicle Branch staff had indi- that he could make an appeal for a return of ence to the Superintendent of Motor Vehi- pd that he would probably have it returned to him. He wrote to the Motor Vehicle Branch in Victoria, but was refused his old licence. He said that he had various reasons for wanting the old licence. For example, it entitled him to drive both cars and motorcycles. He was not sure he c6"$a*' get a B.C. motorcycle licence in time for a planned holiday. Furthermore, the licence served as a source of identification in his country of origin and enabled him to rent vehicles and get driving insurance more easily there. He was also not sure whether he would remain in Canada permanently, and so wanted to keep the old licence. We did a full investigation on this complaint. The Motor Vehicle Branch cited the Motor Vehicle Act which stated that a driver's licence held prior to application for a B.C. licence should be surrendered unless the Superintendent dispensed with the surrender. The Superintendent informed the Ombudsman that he rarely exercised this discfe^ tion and usually only in the case of B.C. residents working in a neighbouring province or in the United States but residing in a border area in B.C. The Branch felt returning foreign licences would not be in keeping with B.C.'s "one licence concept". We did research on other provinces' treatments of foreign driver's licences and found that some were as stringent as B.C. but that a number were less stringent. After numerous discussions and various letters to and from the Motor Vehicle Branch, I recommended that the Motor Vehicle Branch institute a new procedure, whereby holders of foreign driver's licences would be able to request their return. The Motor Vehicle Branch agreed to institute this new procedure. Form letters were drawn up to deal with requests for return of foreign driver's licences, as well as to explain the use of the B.C. driver's licence and the international driving permit and including a list of countries in which these were usable. The Branch also stated that individuals surrendering their foreign driver's licences would be informed that they would be held for up to five years or until expiry, whichever date came first, and that they had the right to apply to have the licence returned in the future. This would apply only to new cases of surrender of foreign driver's licences as, prior to institution of the Ombudsman's recommendation, driver's licences had either been returned to their home jurisdictions or destroyed. CS 81-116 Driver can rebut claim he's unfit A driver told me that the Branch had refused to tell him the details of a complaint received by the Branch about his fitness to drive. Since the Board had used the complaint as reason to require him to take a driver re-examination, he felt it unfair that he 75 was not told the details and was not given a chance to respond. The Superintendent of Motor Vehicles has the authority under the Motor Vehicle Act to require a driver re-examination. Once the Motor Vehicle Branch has received a complaint about a driver's fitness or ability to drive, and it is satisfied that the complaint is legitimate, the Branch sends a standard notice asking the driver to comply with the item(s) indicated in the notice. In the usual course of events, the Motor Vehicle Branch does not inform the driver of the reasons for the notice. If the driver questions the Branch's notice, he may be given details about the complaint, but he will not be given the complainant's name or an opportunity to repond to the complaint. While I acknowledged the Branch's need to keep the complainant's name confidential, I was concerned about their administrative procedure, which did not give the driver the reasons for the request for the re-examination, the details of the complaint, or an opportunity to respond to the complaint. The Motor Vehicle Branch agreed to amend its administrative procedure. Now, the Motor Vehicle Branch sends a letter requesting the driver to appear for a re-examination and saying that the Branch has received a complaint about his fitness to drive. The letter gives the driver the name of someone to contact for information. If the driver can show the complaint is unjustified, the Branch will withdraw its request for a re-examination. In my opinion, the Branch procedure is no longer arbitrary or unfair. CS 81-117 Restriction Invalid, amputee finds The complainant's left leg had been amputated immediately below the knee and a prosthesis fitted. In 1977 he purchased a logging truck, and applied to obtain a Class 1 driver's licence. He passed the driver's test, but the Motor Vehicles Branch would only grant him a Class 1 licence which restricted him to driving in British Columbia. The complainant said this affected his opportunities for work. My investigator contacted the Motor Vehicle Branch, and was told that individuals with a be- low-the-knee amputation did not meet the medical standards for a Class 1 driver's licence. The Motor Vehicle Branch said that while it could permit such an individual to drive within British Columbia, it was contrary to reciprocal agreements with other provinces to grant him a B.C. licence to drive Class 1 vehicles in other provinces. I contacted the Alberta Motor Vehicles' Division, and received a letter from the Division indicating that if B.C. was prepared to grant the indi ridual a 76 restricted Class 1 operator's licence, Alberta would be prepared to honour such a licendai that province. It appeared to me that notwitli- standing this letter, the individual would be without a valid driver's licence upon crossing the Alberta border. I contacted the Motor Vehicle Branch again. The Branch agreed to seek a legal opinion as to whether or not it could expand the restrictiojH the individual's Class 1 licence to permit him to drive in British Columbia and Alberta.ffli Branch's solicitor subsequently advised thai, while the Branch had no authority to restrHH person to driving in British Columbia and Alberta only, neither did it have authority to restridHH individual to operate a vehicle in British ColuffB only. Subsequently the Motor Vehicle BraWt agreed to lift this restriction from the individall licence and the complaint was thereby resolH CS 81-118 Tell 'em like it is! The complainant had been convicted four timtB four years of alcohol-related driving offences and had had his licence suspended indefinitely. SB the past two years, the Motor Vehicle Branch had sent him a number of letters requesting that he provide a letter from Alcoholics Anonymous or a similar organization attesting to his sobriety for the previous six-month period. The complainant® sent in two such letters but the Branch did;not reinstate his licence. Upon investigation, I concluded that the Branch had misled the complainant into believing thaMe needed only to provide the Branch with a letter of attestation and his licence would be automatically returned. In fact, the Branch was quite properly more concerned that the complainant had solved his alcohol problems and for that reason had telephoned the people who had written the letteepi behalf of the complainant. These people had stated that while the complainant was progressing, he had clearly not resolved his problems with alcohol. I concluded that the Branch had acted properly in continuing to refuse to reinstate the licence. However, while I did not think the Branch had acted improperly in telephoning the authors of the letters of attestation, I did conclude that the Branch had acted unfairly in leading the complainant to believe that he would get his licence back if he sent in such letters. I therefore proposed that the Branch make it clear that when it received a letter attesting sobriety, it might telephone the author for more information. The Branch agreed, and promised to make this clear in any future letters to such persons. -1 111-119 [pensions suspended during labour strife fcmplainant had received a notice from the lirance Corporation of British Columbia which Eid that because he had not paid money owing i= Corporation, l.C.B.C. had asked the Super- bident of Motor Vehicles to suspend his motor lble licence. The complainant pointed out that I if he paid, l.C.B.C. might not be able to ■jess his payment because l.C.B.C. em- lees were, at that time, on strike. The suspen- I request might not be counteracted. Icomplainant was finally able to contact the lager of customer collections for l.C.B.C., and ■manager made sure that the complainant's Inent was processed and the suspension Bed. ■3 this individual's problems were thus re- Hd, I remain concerned that other residents in HBovince might find themselves in the same ■tion. Sals in the Motor Vehicle Branch agreed that Bnsion notices received from l.C.B.C. would tie processed during a labour dispute, al- jijh this directive did not apply to people who f previous debts to l.C.B.C. 120 ate transfers Was an investigation that I initiated on my after receiving six individual complaints ng with the same issue. Each of the complai- had owed money to the Insurance Corpora- if British Columbia as a result of receiving Ity points on their driver record. In each case pmplainant had failed to pay at the required and his or her motor vehicle licence had quite properly, suspended. Each of these lainants had wanted to sell his or her vehicle imily member, but the Motor Vehicle Branch efused to permit the sale. The Branch be- that the sale was probably a fraudulent action and that the complainant would con- to use the vehicle. The complainants d to sell their cars quickly so they paid the | they owed and thus solved their problems. ilfer, I initiated my own investigation. I was unable to find any statutory authority which would permit the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles to refuse to transfer a motor vehicle on the grounds that the owner owed money to l.C.B.C. Furthermore, it was my opinion that this policy was unfair for two reasons. First, there is no logical relationship between owing money to l.C.B.C. and being prohibited from selling one's vehicle. Second, these individuals were being deprived of their right to sell their property without having received an opportunity to be heard. The Board arbitrarily assumed a sale to a relative must be fraudulent, and did not give the complainant a chance to explain the reasons. The Motor Vehicle Branch agreed with my conclusion that the policy was without statutory authority, and the policy was subsequently abolished. CS 81-121 The pleasures of purple gas In order to buy inexpensive coloured gasoline for her Ford "Bronco", which she used to haul feed and farm equipment, the complainant needed commercial plates. She had been denied these. The reason given by the Motor Vehicle Branch for the refusal was that the Bronco had a removable back seat. This meant that the vehicle did not fall within the provisions of the Commercial Transport Act, which says that a commercial vehicle is a motor vehicle having permanently attached to it a truck or delivery body. I understood that the Bronco's cargo-carrying area was comparable to or greater than the area provided in other vehicles which were classified as commercial vehicles, and that the rear seat was readily removable for large loads. I therefore concluded that the vehicle had a permanently attached delivery body and that the presence of the removable rear seat was not relevant. On the basis of this conclusion, I recommended that the complainant be provided with commercial plates and that the Motor Vehicle Branch reverse its practice of denying commercial plates to vehicles with removable rear seats, if they are in other ways commercial vehicles. The Superintendent of Motor Vehicles accepted my recommendation and the complainant was able to obtain her commercial plates. 77 BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, TRIBUNALS AND CORPORATIONS AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION CS 81-122 Lease arrangement means second house possible The complainant and his father-in-law purchased ten acres of property in the Thompson-Nicola Regional District with the intent of using the land for market gardening. He applied to the Commission for subdivision approval as both he and his father- in-law wanted to construct homes on the property. The application was refused on the grounds that the property was capable of supporting a wide range of crops and that its agricultural potential should be preserved. It was the Commission's opinion that a ten acre parcel was the minimum size practical for vegetable or market gardening purposes. The complainant felt that the Commission had not been consistent, having made the opposite ruling for other applications in the vicinity. The Commission provided my office with a summary of how applications for subdivision in the immediate vicinity had been disposed of. I concluded that the decision did not involve any discrimination or impropriety towards this individual's application and that it was in keeping with the intent of the Agricultural Land Commission Actto preserve agricultural land intact. During my investigation, it became clear that what the complainant really wanted was permission to build a second residence. I therefore advised him that he could re-apply to the Commission for subdivision by a lease with an explanatory plan. The Commission tends to look more favourably on this type of application as it does not involve the creation of further land title parcels in the Land Title Office. The complainant agreed to proceed with this new application. CS 81-123 Waterslide approved; objectors take dunking A number of Okanagan residents complained about the Commission's approval of a waterslide within the Agricultural Land Reserve. Any change in land use must be approved by the Commission. Waterslides are composed of sections of molded fibreglass strung together in a snaking fashion and then waxed to make them slippery. Water pours down each slide creating a wet ride of approximately 400 feet. Opponents had used a 78 court challenge before coming to the OmbiHJ man. I investigated the Commission's procedure^ in granting approval. The waterslide operators had obtained all the necessary approvals in order to operate the s|H The property was in an area zoned tourist/^H mercial and the application was recommended for approval by the Board of the Regional District. An on-site inspection of the facility was arranplB and several local orchardists were interviev|Hj I concluded that the Commission had actedffl cording to law in approving this application, that it had imposed appropriate controls on the de- velopers, and that the complaint was not substantiated. A side issue in this complaint was the concetHj surrounding orchardists that the spray drift from chemicals used in their orchards would pose a health hazard. Although orchards and camps^H exist side by side throughout the Okanag™ these orchardists complained that it is not a good rationale for increasing a health hazard to sayffi the same hazard exists elsewhere. Members of my staff who visited the property noted that the waterslide is constructed as far as possible away from orchards on the ten acre lot. The Commission made it a condition of approval that a chain-linkfence be erected along the p&W erty line bordering on orchards. I noted that BE ists camp in or near orchards throughoutw Okanagan and it was my opinion that any conditions imposed on the operators of this partitM waterslide and campsite should also be imposed on other Okanagan campsite operators. I broOM the question of the potential health hazard to campers to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, the Minister of Health, and the Minister of Tourism. ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Declined, withdrawn, discontinued Resolved: corrected during investigation..-.! Substantiated: corrected after recommend! Substantiated but not rectified . Not substantiated CLOSED—TOTAL Number of cases open Dec. 31,1981 1 assessment of property is the basis for pay- it of tax, I find it surprising that I have received twenty-one complaints involving the Assess- it Authority. Perhaps property owners are jre that my authority to deal with these prob- s is limited. Property owners have a right to pal their assessment to the Court of Revision, iwhere such a statutory right of appeal exists I ■hot investigate. [plaints I did receive involved the Assessment Bority's determination of actual value, its clas- [ation of a complainant's property for assess- It purposes, and the procedures employed by Assessment Authority. Where the complainant I a right to appeal I explained the appeal ledures. Imber of substantial achievements were made Is area of farm classification, as a result of an ntigation I undertook on my own initiative as a I of a diversity of individual complaints deal- Bth a variety of aspects of farm assessment, •standards which a property must meet in Ir to be classified as a farm, though at face I; quite simple, are in fact complicated, and ■irimary concern was that farmers and as- lors alike be properly informed. I very much ■eciated the Assessment Commissioner's ■gness to review my concerns and to take Hi as recommended. - -124 Hot a farm if it doesn't sell produce Bived in both 1980 and 1981 a number of Blaints concerning the manner in which the Bssment Authority determines whether or not llperty is classifed as a farm for assessment Irises. Prior to 1979, an individual's property s:ied as a farm if he produced roughly $1,600 H of agricultural produce, while after 1979, the ndual was required to produce and sell pro- i in order to receive farm classification. Since Berty which is classified as farm is taxed at a 1rate, people who lost farm classification as a H of the change in definition felt unfairly id. 2nd the change was neither unjust nor im- Brly discriminatory. Cabinet intended that ■classification be given only to those land c's whose agricultural production benefitted Hty as a whole. liiducting these investigations I came across Ifcber of other issues concerning the manner vch farm classification is determined. These IHincluded both apparent ambiguities in the Bribed standards for farm classification and -lent inequities in the procedures employed Hi Assessment Authority in classifying such ■lies. I subsequently wrote to the Assess- 1 Commissioner and proposed seven H changes to both the farm classifications standards and the administrative procedures used in implementing the standards. I found the Commissioner and his staff to be most cooperative in resolving these concerns, and each of my suggestions was either implemented or resolved after further discussion. CS 81-125 No proof unweighed apples are underweight After completing a college program in agricultural studies, a young man returned to his parents' property on one of the northern islands in Georgia Strait. He attempted over a number of years to farm the property, but despite his best efforts the Assessment Authority declined to classify the property as a farm for assessment purposes. The young man complained to me. I found that the Assessment Authority had arbitrarily assumed that the crop of apples which the complainant had produced and sold was smaller than what he had stated. In the absence of evidence to support this presumption, I concluded that this action was procedurally unfair and contrary to law. Furthermore, the Assessment Commissioner had tentatively classified the property as a farm, subject to a further review by his staff. This review was not conducted yet the property was not given farm classification. I concluded that this was contrary to the regulations for farm classification. Farm classification had been tentatively approved by the Commissioner; it was the responsibility of the Authority's staff to complete the review, and their failure to do so ought not to have prejudiced the complainant. I informed the Assessment Authority of my conclusions, but I did not make any recommendations in this case. The complainant had not suf- ered by not receiving farm classification because the taxes paid on the property were already so low that farm classification would not have affected them. Furthermore, it was impossible in law for the classification of the property in prior years to be changed retroactively. I closed the complaint as not rectified. CS 81-126 An (un)appealing case In 1979, a property owner appealed his assessment to the Assessment Appeal Board arguing that the actual value as determined by the Area Assessor was too high. The Appeal Board agreed and reduced the actual value. The property owner, on the basis of this decision, argued that the actual value figure on his 1978 assessment, which had been determined by the same assessor, should be lowered and a refund of taxes recommended. When this was refused, the property owner complained to me. 79 In British Columbia, the Court of Revision andjhe Assessment Appeal Board review the decisions of the Assessment Authority assessors with respect to the actual value of properties. These tribunals only review such decisions when appeals are brought to them. The property owner in this case had not appealed his 1978 assessment and because of that, the Court of Revision and Assessment Appeal Board were precluded from reviewing and amending that assessment. In my view, the fact that the Board had reduced the assessment in 1979 was not conclusive evidence that the 1978 assessment was in error. The assessor insisted it was correct and without further evidence I could not decide the matter. The property owner could have appealed the matter in 1978 at very little cost. If successful, he would have saved only $55 in taxes. As a result I was unwilling to expend a great deal of my resources in resolving the matter. I therefore suggested that the property owner obtain, at his own cost, an opinion from an accredited real estate appraiser on the actual value of the property in 1978. He was unwilling to do this and I discontinued my investigation. CS 81-127 Tax battler gets method of oil company assessment A complainant had been trying to prove that an oil company was not paying enough property tax and that as a result he and his neighbours were paying more than their share. He came to me with three complaints about the Assessment Authority and the Assessment Appeal Board. He complained that he had been denied information concerning the method used in arriving at the assessment of certain properties of the oil company and the facts obtained to support the assessment. He also complained that the Assessment Appeal Board in hearing the appeal of his own assessment was wrong in refusing to require that the Assessor provide him with details about the as- 80 *^ ...MAY05 ^B &lk>ULP PAY -~ QUIZ PZOPBRTY. TAiBS... Reprinted courtesy King Features Syndicate. sessment. In addition, he felt the Board had acted unfairly in refusing to state a case, that is, to ask B.C. Court of Appeal for an opinion about whether people like himself were entitled to the information. I decided that the Authority had acted properM not disclosing the supporting data about the oil company's assessment. The Assessmennffl provides that no member of the Assessment^ thority may release information obtained under the Act to a person not legally entitled to it.,lit appeared to me that any disclosure in this case would have been contrary to law. However, in my view this restriction did not apply to details about the method used in arriving at the assessnHj The Area Assessor agreed with this view and stated he would provide this information to the complainant. With respect to the complainant's own appeal, I felt that it was not unreasonable for the complainant after reading the rules to assume that the particulars would be produced. The Appeal Board's rules of procedure seemed to me to be ambiguous on the point. However, the Board's interpretation of the rules was not an unreas|E ble one either, so I was unable to conclude thatthe Board had acted unfairly. However, at my suggestion, they have changed the wording of the rules*) end some ambiguities. B.C. BOARD OF PAROLE CS 81-128 One-liner answer won't do, says Parole Board An inmate at the Prince George Regional CorJej- tonal Centre complained that he had been given no reasons for the denial of his parole applicaffi| Investigation confirmed that the inmate's application was denied by the Board. During the heap interview, the inmate had been given oral reasjgs for the denial of parole. The obligation to inform the inmate in writing, as required by the Regulations of the Parole Act (Canada), had been met by r one-line statement that the inmate "has not bived maximum benefit from incarceration." hy opinion, the complaint was substantiated, igeneral and opaque statement given was not jquate from the standpoint of administrative hess. Adequate reasons should refer to the jmation upon which denial was based or to the ngs upon which the decision rests. An ade- |te reason must have specific content which [ be refuted, or which will help the inmate to \ specific steps before he next applies for pa- i The Board agreed with my position, coned the members involved, and issued a reel decision. This complaint also served as the lis of discussion at a General Membership llting of the Board where the provision of writ- leasons was considered in depth. The cooper- la attitude of the Board was further evidenced is invitation to address the Board on develop- a code of administrative fairness. B.C. FERRY CORPORATION ■lined, withdrawn, discontinued 4 lolved: corrected during investigation 10 Istantiated: corrected after recommend. 0 Btantiated but not rectified 0 ■substantiated _5 I CLOSED—TOTAL 19 Hber of cases open Dec. 31, 1981 _6 Ing the latter part of 1981, a reorganization "isome new appointments in B.C. Ferry Corpo- tn resulted in delayed communications from Corporation to my office. I anticipate that this fculty will be resolved when all positions have In filled. I have found that in most situations, I Ferry Corporation personnel have been Iterative. are received complaints from both the ferry- ;ig public and employees of the Corporation. Eg a field trip in the summer of this year, I saw lystem first hand and heard the comments of mem residents who rely on these vessels. le northern residents fear that their needs may Herlooked in an effort to accommodate large Ibers of tourists. Since my return, I have dis- ■ed these concerns with the Chairman of B.C. i Corporation Board. I will report later in 1982 It the actions taken by the Board. 1-129 ir procedures cause blow to ain's honour eived a complaint from the captain of a B.C. Corporation motor vessel that he had been rly found 70% at fault for a collision between two Corporation vessels. After the collision, an inquiry into the cause of the accident was held by the Ferry Corporation and the complainant was advised of the allocation of fault arrived at by the inquiry panel. He had pursued every means available to vindicate himself, and had finally sought my help. The initial, informal inquiry into the cause of the accident had taken place the day following the collision. A further inquiry, in which both captains were represented by legal counsel, was set for a month later. That hearing was adjourned so the Corporation could get legal advice on questions raised by the lawyers for the captains. Approximately one month later, further evidence was heard. We conducted an extensive investigation into the procedural fairness of the inquiry conducted by the Ferry Corporation. The complainant is a master mariner with a lifetime career in navigation. It was indisputable that a finding of 70% responsibility for a marine accident was a serious blot on his honour. In light of the importance to the complainant of the decision made by the Corporation, it was my view that an adverse decision should only have been made after an inquiry in which the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice were strictly observed. Several aspects of the inquiry were of concern to me. Although the other captain and all crew members of both vessels were union members, the complainant was not. A union representative was present to represent the others during the evidence given by the other captain and by the crews of both vessels. However, the complainant did not hear the evidence of the other crew, and only heard the evidence of his own crew by insisting on doing so. The second time the inquiry was convened, a month after the accident, a new member had been added to the panel. This member was integrally involved in making the ultimate decision on fault, although he had not heard the evidence given the day after the collision, when the events would have been most fresh in the minds of the witnesses. Further, this member did not hear all the witnesses, as some only spoke on the first day. Further, counsel for both captains requested notice of any alleged error or misconduct on the part of their clients, but the panel declined to provide this notice and stated that the intention of the panel was solely to determine the facts and not to allocate fault. As a response to the complainant's persistence, a review panel composed of three Ferry Corporation captains was later constituted. However, no notice was given to the complainant and he was therefore denied the opportunity to present his argu- 81 ments and evidence to the review panel before it rendered its decision. I advised the General Manager and the Chairman of the Board of the B.C. Ferry Corporation of my concerns and informed them that I had under consideration a recommendation that the complainant be given an effective opportunity to present his case to a fairly constituted review panel, empowered to vary the decision if indicated. I also suggested that the Ferry Corporation modify its practice of excluding persons who may be adversely affected by a decision from hearing all the evidence, they need to hear all the evidence if they are to defend themselves effectively. The Chairman of the Corporation told me that he would have the General Manager review the procedures I had found fault with and keep me informed. He also decided to wipe references to the accident from the personnel files of both captains, and to make adjustments to the complainant's salary. As it was my view that the Chairman had acted promptly and fairly to resolve the complaint, it was not necessary to make any formal recommendation. CS 81-130 Instructor unjustly ejected An engine-room instructor complained that B.C. Ferries, which had at one time laid him off from work with the Corporation, was now improperly interfering with his employment chances elsewhere. The instructor had been hired by a training institute to teach students how the engine room of a ferry works. The training required that the students spend a short part of their course in an actual engine room. The training institute had made an agreement with B.C. Ferries which allowed the students to spend time in the engine room but required that they be accompanied by an instructor. Two days after the students came on board, a Corporation official told the principal of the institute that the instructor was not welcome on the ship. The principal was forced to place his students on ships not operated by the Corporation. No instructor was needed there, and the instructor therefore worked a shorter time than he had expected. I discovered that the Corporation had violated its agreement with the training institute by refusing admittance to the instructor, and that this violation had caused the unjust termination of his employment. Although B.C. Ferries refused to accept responsibility for the instructor's loss of his job, it did accept my recommendation that it issue him a cheque for the amount he would have earned if the job had lasted the proper length of time. 82 B.C. HOUSING MANAGEMENT COMMISSION CS 81-131 Right tenant gets suite A single mother of three children, who was receiving income assistance, applied for a subsidlM apartment in a B.C. Housing Management CbH mission building. When she was unsuccessful her application, she complained to me thatftH Commission had granted the apartment to a woman who was better off financially thanfflj was. We reviewed the material available at the ComM sion. We found that the correct priority had been) allotted to each applicant. The tenant in the designated unit had actually been worse off than the complainant and, through no fault of her own, had been given notice to vacate her previous resi- dence. Consequently, the complaint wasjH substantiated. B.C. HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY Declined, withdrawn, discontinued 19 Resolved: corrected during investigation 20 Substantiated: corrected after recommend. 1 Substantiated but not rectified 0 Not substantiated J CLOSED—TOTAL 49 Number of cases open Dec. 31,1981 34 Hydro has a wide-ranging role in the Province, and as a result the year's 49 complaints concerning Hydro have been equally wide-ranging. I have looked into complaints about disconnected service, a pole placed on private property, damage caused by a poorly maintained railway crossing, delay in dealing with a request to transfer a water licence, and illegally collected taxes. When I have found a complaint justified Hydro has responded favourably to my recommendations. In one case, Hydro could not correct an inequity itself, but provided information to a regional district, which could and did correct it. I found one recurring problem: separated couples had no way of knowing whether Hydro would bill both members, or only the account holder, for overdue accounts. I suggested that Hydro develop a formal policy and have all credit officers apply it. I am happy to report that Hydro now hasa policy based on this suggestion. 181-132 lick is a pawn in Band-Hydro chess-game llative Indian Band complained that B.C. Hydro 1 announced its intention to remove the line intenance truck from their island Reserve. This lild inevitably reduce the quality of service to ! id members. The Band Manager said that the Id was currently negotiating with Hydro for the Ig-term lease of a parcel of Reserve Land to lablish a permanent collections office and Intenance yard. He believed that Hydro had Iposed removing the truck in an effort to pres- lethe Band in the negotiations and complained I the decision was not consistent with negotiat- i in good faith and, in any event, was unfair to Id members. I:iuested a statement of B.C. Hydro's position. Ite a good number of people would have been Icted by the removal of the truck from the is- iil. I also requested that the move be postponed 1 we had finished our investigation. Hydro staff Inowledged that the decision to remove the Ik from the island was an attempt to bring Itsure on the Band to recognize Hydro's stated Ids and to speed negotiations. Hydro staff exiled that they had been trying for four years lout success to negotiate the purchase or Be of half an acre of land. ■Band Manager confirmed that the Band had I;ulty reaching agreement on the exact condi- Bunder which land should be made available Hydro. He explained that the approval process I complicated by the requirements of the akn Act (Canada), the Department of Indian Mrs and the Band Council itself. Our approach ins problem involved ensuring that the level of pice to the community was not reduced by ilval of the Hydro truck. At the same time we iBuraged the Band Manager to clarify the |[ad's intentions and to keep Hydro informed of ■Sand's progress in getting approval to release Hfor Hydro's use. IB months after I received the complaint, the I Manager reported that he had met with Bg Regional Manager and was now satisfied lithe level of service to the community would deteriorate. Soon afterward the Band reached i greement with Hydro on the terms of a lease ■Hydro replaced the existing maintenance -; with one in better condition. -133 i ing bill not Hydro's fault jdent of the Interior complained that he had owed a notice from B.C. Hydro stating that his t= ficity would be disconnected unless he paid s ierdue account of over $200 within one week, e wnplained that he had not received a bill from Hydro for this amount and was therefore unable to set the money aside. We found the reason he had not received a bill was that there had been a postal strike. The complainant had a previous history of overdue accounts with B.C. Hydro and had been presented earlier with the option of paying his Hydro bill on the equal monthly payment plan. He chose not to do this and did not set any money aside in anticipation of the inevitable bill. Given the length of time the complainant had lived in his present home, it was my opinion that he should have been able to estimate the amount he would be billed for electricity. The complainant found it annoying to receive a disconnection notice without having received a prior statement of his account. However, under the circumstances I did not think that B.C. Hydro could be held responsible for his financial difficulties. Therefore, I was unable to substantiate the complaint and, considering that it was summer, I concluded that B.C. Hydro had not acted unfairly in advising this individual of their intention to disconnect his power if the account was not paid. I suggested to the complainant that he seek financial assistance and counselling through the Ministry of Human Resources if he was unable to resolve the matter on his own. CS 81-134 Drawing water from Hydro The complainant owned several acres of land in the Interior and several years ago B.C. Hydro had expropriated a portion of the land for a hydro electric project. The complainant had had a licence to draw water from a creek running through the property but it had gone with the expropriated portion. The man complained that B.C. Hydro had not responded to his requests that the water licence be transferred to the adjacent land which he still owned. We discussed the complaint with Hydro personnel and examined Hydro's file. It became apparent that no action was being taken on the complainant's long-standing request and, judging from notes on the file, it appeared possible the licence would be cancelled instead of transferred. Hydro personnel readily agreed to review the complainant's request and subsequently wrote to the Comptroller of Water Rights, requesting the transfer of the water licence. CS 81-135 Hydro solution enlightens woman I received a complaint from a woman who was being asked by B.C. Hydro to pay an overdue electricity account which had accrued at a former 83 residence. The account at that residence had been registered in the name of the woman's common-law husband and, as she was no longer living with him, she felt that it was unfair of Hydro to ask her to pay the bill. She complained to my office when Hydro threatened to disconnect her electricity if she did not pay the account. I contacted the Credit Officer at Hydro who stated that according to policy, if the couple were still living together, Hydro would attempt to collect the bill from either party. He believed that the couple was still living together. The Credit Officer informed me that if the complainant could prove that she had not been living with her common-law husband since the bill became overdue, she would not be asked to pay the account. He suggested that she could obtain letters from her two previous landlords to bolster her position. This remedy appeared reasonable. The complainant agreed to collect the necessary evidence and present it to Hydro, ending the problem. CS 81-136 Who's In charge of the charge? A man complained that he was being charged the non-residential transit levy rate of $4 21 per month on his Hydro bill. As the power pole for which he was being charged was located on the site of his future residence, the complainant felt that the residential rate of 61 tj per month should apply. Imagine-i-ha-i-l Vafe offered him HIO- compe-nsa-tionafld he's still notsa+ieafiiaj. m Although Hydro is authorized by the Urban TrahA Authority Act to collect transit levies on behalf o municipalities and regional districts, it could riol adjudicate this type of complaint. However, Hydra informed us that the complainant's electricity Ul count did not qualify for the non-residential rate On examining the definition of "residential dwelling unit" in the Act, I found that the complainant's situation was not specifically covered. As I haveal this time no authority under the Ombudsman Ac. to investigate complaints involving regional cfl] tricts or municipalities, I could not recommend that the Greater Vancouver Regional District!?! interpret the Act. However, Hydro did provide information on the status of the complainant's nearly-completed! house to the regional district. On the basis of tra information, the regional district agreed that the residential levy should be applied to the complainant's account and the complaint was thus resolved without my direct intervention. CS 81-137 Anchors away A resident of a small municipality in the interior complained to me that Hydro had placed a popf pole? anchor on his recently purchased property without his permission. He also complained that the $10 compensation offered by Hydro was not satisfactory. The complainant's attempts toj& solve the matter on his own and with the asas- tance of a lawyer had been unsuccessful, a I contacted Hydro and was informed that Hjft and the municipality had each assumed theoffir had registered an easement for the anchorffljl the Land Registry Office. Hydro staff was apparently under the impression that Hydro hajaa blanket easement over the subdivision ||d thought that it was the municipality's responsibility to notify prospective purchasers; the municipality was under the impression that it was HydroaS- sponsibility to notify purchasers of the easenmit. As a result of my involvement, Hydro statfEP- knowledged the error and the inconveniewe caused to the complainant and moved the ancjor to a location more acceptable to him. CS 81-138 Taxed patience An Indian Band complained that Hydrate charging social service taxes on its electriciraB- The Band was informed that if it failed to pay the taxes, electricity would be cut off. The Band complained that the imposition of the tax was illegal on a federal Reserve. I contacted the Hydro office and pointed out thata court decision had decided the issue 18 months 84 ■jr. In that case, a taxpayer argued that she Bexempt from tax under section 87 of the cn Act (Canada), as electricity delivered to r it her home on the Reserve was "personal Herty situated on a Reserve." The court ruled in Ur of the taxpayer and effective December 4, 1, registered Indians living on Reserves were Eipt from paying social service tax. living a consultation between the local Hydro lager and the Commissioner of Taxation, the It advised that no action was to be taken Inst the Band. The Manager was to supply the In Band with social service tax exemption Is. Any taxes previously imposed on the Band |d be refunded. If139 ■rated couples treated separately e'esult of several complaints which I received burning B.C. Hydro's collection procedures in let to separated couples, I initiated an inves- l}n of the matter. ■pmplaints which I had received suggested ■that the credit and collection policy respect- Ifeiarated couples was not uniformly applied ■Hydro's offices. I suggested to Hydro that Hpicy in this area be written out formally and Bated to all credit officers. Hydro later in- Hd me that they had done just that, and : Jed me with a copy. 140 repaired itorcycle driver stated that B.C. Hydro's ', to maintain properly the railway crossing at Duth end of the Queensborough Bridge in Vestminster caused his motorcycle to slip on acks. He complained that when he brought foblem to B.C. Hydro's attention, Hydro re- to compensate him for the damage to his Jlcycle and did not agree with him that repairs crossing were necessary. The complainant ■articularly concerned that corrective action jten because he had seen other motorcycles 1^ the crossing. Hranged for an inspection of the crossing by Jpector from the Railway Inspection Branch ti Elinistry of Transportation and Highways. He t mined that the difference in height between .Banking and the track was greater than the ich allowed under the Railway Act. The in- ifcr advised B.C. Hydro of the problem and : immediately dispatched a work crew to It the level of the planking. We then visited fe with the inspectors and adjusters. On the s of this joint inspection, the Hydro adjuster i ed that it would be appropriate to offer par tial compensation for the damage to the complainant's motorcycle. Inspection showed that the design of the approach to the railway crossing could be improved from the point of view of safety and maintenance. However, any relocation or redesign of the crossing would fall within the responsibility of the City of New Westminster. The representative of B.C. Hydro Railway agreed to discuss the problem with the city engineers with a view to eliminating the crossing in question altogether. In the meantime, he gave his assurance that the problem crossing would continue to be monitored to ensure that it is maintained at an acceptable standard. The complainant was told that if he had any complaint in the future about the quality of this crossing, or any other railway crossing under provincial jurisdiction, he should contact the Chief Inspection Engineer of the Railway Inspection Branch, Ministry of Transportation and Highways. REPAIR THETRACKS THERE'5 NCTJJiaja* U/RON6 WITH THE. TRACKS. PO VLXJ THINK VOUCAU B1AHE us FOR EVERY J-ITDLE TWN6T(iAT«JaaS la/ROHEL WITH YOUR BJKE? INSURANCE CORPORATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Declined, withdrawn, discontinued 112 Resolved: corrected during investigation^ I 74 Substantiated: corrected after recommend. 0 Substantiated but not rectified I 0 Not substantiated __§! CLOSED—TOTAL . 237 Number of cases open Dec. 31, 1981 .193 My progress with l.C.B.C. was severely hampered this year by I.C.B.C.'s five month strike. This not only impeded I.C.B.C.'s operations, but also thwarted my ability to investigate complaints against the Corporation. l.C.B.C. complaints 85 comprised the second largest group of complaints to my office. I regret to report that the working relationship between my office and l.C.B.C. has deteriorated since last year. I had accepted a procedure whereby virtually all complaints against the Corporation would first be referred to I.C.B.C.'s Public Enquiries Department and that I would subsequently conduct an investigation of my own if I was not satisfied with the response. Unfortunately, the Public Enquiries Department has taken my willingness to cooperate as an agreement to relinquish my powers to contact other Corporation staff directly. I became aware of this when a copy of an internal l.C.B.C. bulletin was delivered anonymously to my office. The bulletin was directed to all claims staff and read: "Further to our Bulletin Number 602 of July 22,1980, this is to re-enforce our instructions to the field that under no circumstances are Ombudsman enquiries to be dealt with in the Claims Offices. The procedure is to refer all enquiries to the office of Mr. Murray T. Rogan, Manager, Public Enquiries." In compliance with this bulletin l.C.B.C. staff have refused to provide my investigators with information when contacted directly. Consequently, a procedure which was originally intended to facilitate the investigation and resolution of complaints has become a serious form of obstruction. The Ombudsman Act makes it an offence for anyone to obstruct, hinder, or resist the Ombudsman in the exercise of his powers or duties. The bulletin counsels Corporation staff to commit this offence. It also places Corporation staff in the dilemma of choosing whether to disobey the law or their superiors. I am not prepared to tolerate this situation and have initiated discussions with l.C.B.C. to establish a more acceptable arrangement. I.C B.C. has a legitimate interest in ensuring that Ombudsman investigations do not unduly burden its staff. I appreciate this concern and will accommodate l.C.B.C. as much as possible consistent with my duty to conduct effective investigations. I should emphasize that the Public Enquiries Department has proved helpful in resolving many individual complaints, and I will continue to rely on its assistance in handling the bulk of the complaints against the Corporation. However, it is essential that I maintain control over my own investigations and preserve my independence. I cannot delegate my responsibility to the Public Enquiries Department where, in my opinion, this is not the most effective or appropriate way to deal with a complaint. There have, however, been a few improvements in l.C.B.C. procedure during 1981. Among them is a change in the salvage disposal form; (see 86 "Salvage form repaired"—CS 81-147). Further, I mentioned last year that clients often saw l.C.B.C. adjusters as rude. This year, I.C.B.C.'s Public Enquiries Department has undertaken to investigate complaints of rudeness. Also during 1981, l.C.B.C. finally provided me with a copy of the Policy Manual I had asked for much earlier. I am concerned about I.C.B.C.'s attitude towards claimants who have retained legal counsel for the purpose of settling an accident claim. The Corporation will not provide advice to a claimant with counsel. I do not feel I.C.B.C.'s obligations to the insured end when a lawyer is retained. This is one area where I hope to effect change. l.C.B.C. has in typically bureaucratic fashion set out to try to contain or control the Ombudsman. I know the public is most disturbed about I.C.B.Cs practices and procedures and I would fail the public and the Legislative Assembly if I allowed l.C.B.C. to continue its efforts to keep the Ombudsman at bay. I am looking for a quick and profound change in I.C.B.C.'s attitudes towards my office. CS 81-141 Dust gathers on homemaker service The Corporation's policy during its strike was to give accident benefits high-priority treatment, but the policy was not always followed. A woman W® injured in a car accident and the Corporation ^K accident benefits to her for seven months, ft also agreed to pay for 10 hours a week of homemaj|j services. In February 1981 the compair||' moved to another area of the Province. She,# ceived written assurance from the Corpora® that it would continue to pay her for homemap rices. However, in May she received a letter ing that her homemaker services had been ninated retroactive to March 1. The woman amassed $669 in homemaker bills during this pd, and complained that it was unfair to termi- E funds retroactively, thus leaving her to pay bills personally. 3n I contacted Corporation officers, they bed that the complainant was entitled to the lemaker service and that her service should itinue. They told the complainant her cheque lid be sent promptly, but some time later, she I me it had not arrived. Once again I contacted Corporation. At my request, the Corporation sed to issue the complainant a cheque for the amount. Unfortunately this was not the end of complainant's difficulties for when she asked adjuster for confirmation, she was told that no :ision had been made. After several more ne calls over a considerable time the matter I straightened out and the Corporation relased leque for the full amount. B1-142 ■ance prevents eviction Hmplainant needed an advance payment on Bairns settlement in order to prevent eviction H-his residence. He had only 10 days to secure ■necessary funds. Previous attempts by his E'er to secure an advance from l.C.B.C. were Ijccessful. We contacted the Corporation and Hosed payment of an advance. Our proposal 1 accepted and an advance was released tin three days. ■1-143 c eeze play tause of the length of the strike two employees pie Corporation were unable to terminate their soil Deduction Plan and collect a refund of the Biey they had invested in Canada Savings Ids. The employees needed to cash their ids in order to meet their financial obligations. b bank claimed that it was unable to release the -His without authorization from the Corporation. 6 Corporation would not provide the necessary Hbrization during the strike. ||k representatives advised my office that the rer of Canada-Savings Bonds has the right to aiinate the Bonds at any time, and that labour ■Kilties should not interfere with that right, ".fcgave this information to the Corporation. It ife ded to authorize the Bank to cancel the plan ifrny employee who gave written notification, .ibloyees were, therefore, able to cash their Wis. . CS 81-144 What's sauce for the goose . . . As a result of the l.C.B.C. strike, a complainant was unable to obtain a refund for his cancelled insurance. The complainant had cancelled his policy in February, 1981 and had been waiting three months for his rebate. Because of what the complainant perceived as an unreasonable length of time in issuing refund cheques, he felt that l.C.B.C. should pay interest on outstanding rebates (my office received a total of 12 complaints dealing with this issue). l.C.B.C. initially refused interest payments to these complainants. We pointed out to the Corporation that according to a recent amendment to the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act, it may charge interest to insureds on the balance of outstanding debts at 18%. It therefore would not be unreasonable to expect the Corporation to pay interest on its own overdue refunds. In July 1981 l.C.B.C. agreed to make an "inconvenience payment" to motorists who had cancelled their insurance and, because of the strike, were kept waiting for refunds. Interest was 15% per year and commenced 30 days after the cancellation of the insurance. The Corporation did not advise me directly of this decision and did not explain its decision to pay only 15% when it is at fault, but charge 18%. Further, the Corporation refused to extend the policy to late payments not caused by the strike. I initiated an investigation into this refusal as it appeared unfair of the Corporation to charge 18% on funds overdue but to pay no interest at all when it was at fault. At year's end, the Corporation had not accepted my proposal that it pay 18% interest on all overdue refunds. CS 81-145 Hidden damage A young man was involved in an accident during the l.C.B.C. strike. His claim for repairs to his vehicle was approved by the Corporation. In repairing the car the mechanic discovered hidden damage. The complainant himself paid for extra repairs, and later asked to be reimbursed. l.C.B.C. refused the reimbursement. We contacted l.C.B.C. and were told that the Corporation would not pay for extra repairs, as the cost of repairs would then exceed the value of the car. The local office told us the complainant had been informed of this but had no notes on file to prove the complainant had been informed. Although the Corporation thought the reason for the lack of notes was the pressure caused by the strike, it approved the claim and reimbursed the complainant. 87 CS 81-146 Termination without notice A car accident victim complained to me that her total disability benefits had been terminated without notice and that l.C.B.C. refused to respond to her calls and letters. In view of the woman's difficulty in contacting the Corporation, I relayed her request for an advance payment and a cheque was issued to her for $7,000. l.C.B.C. may terminate benefits if a claimant has not followed the Corporation's rehabilitation program. However, the law requires l.C.B.C. to give at least 120 days notice in writing. In this case, benefits were terminated without notice. Therefore, I proposed that the Corporation reinstate the woman's benefits immediately and that the Corporation pay all benefits to which the woman was entitled retroactive to the date of her last benefit. Further, I proposed that all claimants be informed of the notice requirement when their first benefit is paid. In response, the Corporation reinstated the woman's benefits, as I had proposed. In addition, the President of the Corporation agreed to distribute a bulletin to all adjusters reminding them of the importance of providing notice where it is required by law. These measures satisfied my concerns in the particular case and decreased the likelihood of the problem occurring again. CS 81-147 Salvage form repaired Every year I.C B.C. sells for salvage thousands of vehicles which have been damaged beyond repair. Before a vehicle can be sold as salvage l.C.B.C. must first obtain the owner's permission in the form of a release. I.C.B.C. wishes to dispose of wrecked vehicles as quickly as possible in order to minimize storage charges. But sometimes owners disagree with the amount offered as compensation for the vehicle and refuse to sign the release, even though the release does not commit the insured to accepting I.C.B.C.'s offer. This delays the disposal of the wreck. In order to speed things up, some l.C.B.C. adjusters have misrepresented the nature of the salvage release form by telling the insured that it was "for towing purposes", or that the insured would be responsible for storage charges if he did not sign the release. Other adjusters have refused to process the claim until the release was signed. This situation led to a number of complaints, and I found that these practices were improper. l.C.B.C. then agreed to revise the standard salvage release form to make it clear to claimants that they had the option of disputing the amount offered while at the same time authorizing l.C.B.C. to dispose of the wreck. A bulletin to all adjusters ex- 88 plains the new form. I expect that this will eliminate deliberate misrepresentation by l.C.B.C personnel. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION CS 81-148 Too late for job appeal: Another method found A public servant applied for a different positm He was not successful in his application and decided to appeal to the Public Service Commission. When he inquired about time limits for his appeal, Ministry staff advised him that, because of the postal strike, the time limit had been extended from fourteen days to twenty-one days. On the fourteenth day he phoned the Public Service Commission and was advised that no such extension had in fact taken place. He immediately file* his appeal by telegram. Unfortunately, the telegram reached the Public Service Commission on the next day, i.e., outside of the time limit for the appeal period. The Public Service Commission was not willing to accept his late appeal. The Public Service Commission informed me that, in addition to the appeal procedures, the complainant could also ask the Public Service Commission to reconsider its decision regarding the filling of the position for which the complainant had applied. I informed the complainant of this possibility. The Public Service Commission agreed to hold a hearing about the job the complainant had competed for. CS 81-149 No more secret ratings Whenever a Government employee leaves the public service, his Ministry issues a document called Separation Report. The report, consisting of a form prepared by the Public Service Commission, contains some standard and routine information. Until recently, it also included information regarding the former employee's job performance and whether the Ministry would be willing to rehire. In most cases, the employee concerned was not aware of the existence of the form. If the fojTji contained negative information, the employee was unaware and had no recourse. Yet the Separation Report became a permanent part of the employee's personnel file. I had received a number of complaints from former employees with difficulties in obtaining reemployment with the public service. It became obvious that, in some cases, negative information in the Separation Report barred re-employment. I recommended to the Public Service Commission that the Separation Report form be changed and that it should not contain information about job performance and a Ministry's willingness to rehire. Iggested that job performance is more appro- Ifttely assessed in annual performance appals, involving a dialogue with the employee licerned and giving the employee an oppor- Ity to comment. I; Public Service Commission accepted my rec- linendation and redrafted its Separation Report t. JPERANNUATION COMMISSIONER p1-150 natter of interest individual joined the public service after he reached the age of 55 years. According to the I'sion (Public Service) Act, he was not eligible liontribute to the Public Service Pension Plan il to receive a pension upon retirement. Ivever, pension contributions had been de- Ited from his pay cheque throughout his five Irs of employment. Ion retirement, he learned that he could receive ■pension. Furthermore, the Superannuation iinmissioner was only willing to refund the com- Bnant's actual pension contributions plus 6% krest as prescribed by the pension legislation. las my argument that, since the complainant R not entitled to contribute to the pension fund, contributions never became a part of that fund ft therefore should not be subject to the 6% srest restriction. I recommended that the com- ainant's return should include interest actually Hied by his contributions. The Superannuation Iinmissioner accepted my recommendation ■ the complainant received approximately ■0 more than he would have otherwise. Udrkers' compensation board ■ined, withdrawn, discontinued 223 .solved: corrected during investigation 33 it stantiated: corrected after recommend. 16 ■stantiated but not rectified 0 ■ substantiated 91 CLOSED—TOTAL . 363 iber of cases open Dec. 31, 1981 139 W.C.B. BOARDS OF REVIEW Sined, withdrawn, discontinued 27 olved: corrected during investigation 6 stantiated: corrected after recommend. 5 stantiated but not rectified 1 substantiated 7 CLOSED—TOTAL 46 Jnber of cases open Dec. 31,1981 11 This year I received 410 complaints against the Workers' Compensation Board and the boards of review who provide an independent appeal from Workers' Compensation Board decisions. Complaints came both from workers who felt their claims for compensation had been unjustly dealt with, and from employers who felt they had been improperly assessed by the Board. The Board has been fairly receptive to the procedural changes which I have recommended; some of these changes are summarized in the cases below. Not all of my procedural recommendations have been accepted. The Board has refused to advise employers of their right to appeal assessment decisions to the Commissioners in all cases. In addition, the Board has refused to reconsider the enactment which prevents it from extending the 90 day time limit for Medical Review Panel appeals. The rigidity of the 90 day limit results in injustice to claimants, who for legitimate reasons, fail to appeal within the time allowed. The Board has been very reluctant to accept my recommendations in cases where I conclude that a decision was unjust based on the available evidence. The Commissioners balk at recognizing my authority to make recommendations based on the Board's weighing of evidence despite the fact that the Ombudsman Act permits me to recommend that a decision be changed where I believe that it is unjust. Over time, I have succeeded in having almost all my recommendations accepted, however, a large proportion of them were not accepted until after I had included them in a report intended for presentation to the Cabinet and Legislative Assembly. I have continued to receive cooperation from the Board's staff in the investigation of complaints this year. I have had exemplary cooperation from the Industrial Health and Safety Department and in particular I commend that department's informal approach to problem solving. Information Services has also exhibited a commendable attitude towards accepting my suggestions. I continue to be concerned about the lack of procedural fairness displayed by the Assessment Department. In addition, I am increasingly concerned about complaints against the Rehabilitation Department. Complainants often refer to instances of rehabilitation staff rudeness or insen- sitivity as well as to specific procedural problems. Overall, I hope that I will receive increased acceptance of my role and recommendations from the Board's new Chairman and Commissioners in 1982. Appeals to the boards of review have been subject to extremely lengthy delays throughout the year. These delays have created extreme hardship for injured workers whose claim or part of it 89 was rejected by a W.C.B. adjudicator and who must now establish their claim through a complicated appeal system. I have encountered such claimants who could not return to work because of injury. To get their appeal decided takes often a year or longer. In the meantime, they are forced to rely on social assistance. It is readily apparent that the long delays inherent in the present appeal system create manifest hardship and injustice. I know that the Minister of Labour is aware of the problem and I hope that he will succeed in bringing about changes soon to alleviate this problem. The boards of review, like the Workers' Compensation Board, have been reluctant to accept my recommendations where I have concluded that their weighing of the evidence was unjust. In retrospect, I have been fairly successful in having my recommendations to the Workers' Compensation Board and the boards of review accepted this year. However, lengthy correspondence is invariably required before success is achieved. The resulting delay is an added frustration for claimants who have already been engaged in years of appeal. I hope to address this problem by developing with the W.C.B. Commissioners and the boards of review a more informal and expeditious approach to handling these complaints in 1982. CS 81-151 Controlled disease no bar to first aid work A first aid attendant complained to my office that she disagreed with the decision of the First Aid Section of the Industrial Health and Safety Division of the Board not to recertify her as an industrial First Aid Attendant. This decision was upheld by the Commissioners. In reviewing the Board's file, I found that the decision to deny the complainant recertification was based on the fact that she had not been free from epileptic seizures over the last twelve months. The complainant disputed this reasoning as she felt that the seizures had resulted from an unsuitable dosage of medication. This situation had ended. A neurologist's findings on this point had not been sent to the Board, and we told the complainant to have the neurologist send in his report. The report would be considered by the First Aid Section as further medical evidence. As a result of investigating this complaint, I became aware of various problems with the procedures of the First Aid Division. These were that: 1. Persons applying for Industrial First Aid Certificates were not informed that if they suffered from specific medical conditions, they might not be eligible for certification. They sometimes did not discover this until after the course was completed. 90 w 2. Although all relevant medical evidence is considered and each case is decided on its own merits, the usual letter sent to applicants when they apply for initial certification says that applicants must be free from seizures for twelve months prior to examination. The applicants were not told that they could submit medical evidence on the reasons for the seizures and on whether the condition was now controlled. 3. If the Board has suspended or cancel^ a first aid certificate, applicants are not advised of their right to appeal. The Industrial First Aid Regulations provide a right of appeal to the Commissioners. As a result of my staff's discussions with the Board's First Aid Division, the following changes to the above procedures were implemented: I 1. Application forms will note that further medical information may be required even though all the standard medical forms are completed. 2. Letters sent to persons applying for inifM certification, and subsequent acceptance letters, will note that failure to meet the criteria will not necessarily result in disqualification; if provided, reasons for not meeting the criteria will also be considered. 3. Decision letters will include a paragraph advising applicants of their rights of appeal. CS 81-152 Board agrees to think ahead An employee of a municipality was injured while participating in a mandatory exercise program required by his employer. The employee, whose job required a high level of physical fitness, had been following his employer's exercise program at work and at home. His injury occurred at home. The Board refused compensation, saying that the injury did not occur during the course of his employment. Representatives of the municipality maintained that the Workers' Compensation Board had given oral approval of the exercise program prior to its implementation. I investigated the complaint and discovered that the employee had received full wage reimbursement by his employer for the time he had missed work due to his injury. Therefore, the complainant had a remedy which solved his individual complaint. However, I was concerned that the matter which he had brought to my attention might affect many other employees in the province, as mandatory or voluntary exercise programs are becoming more frequent. In fact, my investigation revealed that the Board had made feral decisions concerning injuries during work jsrcise programs over the past several months luding one in which one of the Board's own ployees had been injured. None of these deci- hs had been made public. lerefore suggested that the Commissioners re- iv the whole area of coverage of sporting ac- ies during work and publish a decision in the Iborter Series outlining their policy so that all Iployers and unions in the province would be lire of it. las also concerned that only oral approval of a Inplicated thirty-page exercise plan had been Ibn to the employer by a representative of the Ittrd. I recommended that the Board institute a Item of advance rulings similar to that provided iRevenue Canada. This would enable employ- oor unions or their physicians to develop a plan, ll submit it to the Board for advance approval of Activities which would be covered. Situations I'hich workers are injured and find themselves liout coverage would then be avoided. 1 Board agreed to include a statement in the lorter Series that advance rulings will be avail- lb to employers throughout the province. Brever, rulings should only be viewed as Itelines and will not be binding on the Board; it [still be necessary to determine whether the Hific accident being investigated fits an ad- ace ruling. ■1-153 ■per accounting injured worker's pension was being seized by liBoard in order to recover a debt. The debt had fan when he previously owned a business and I not paid his assessments. The Board is en- tlj to seize a subsequent pension in these cir- listances. The worker complained that despite Bfact that his pension had been seized for over ifiar, he was unable to discover the outstanding Wince of his account, whether cost of living leases were being applied to his pension, and represent monthly rate of his pension, ristigation showed that the Collections Branch t e Board could not provide this information to rlcomplainant since the Branch was not given ri information by the Pensions Branch. There If no procedure for informing workers of the iDiunt of the funds credited to their accounts or II of the fact that such transfers of funds had Hh made. sggested the Board adopt a new practice for riming this worker and others in his position. Hy six months when the pension is adjusted HPensions Branch should advise the Collec- 11; Branch of the amount of the pension and the EO'Unt of the cost of living increase. The Collec tions Branch could then give the complainant this information and also tell him of the amount credited to his account and the outstanding balance. The Board adopted this proposal and advised the complainant of the relevant information. CS 81-154 Board re-reads Act, makes award to children A woman complained that the Board had denied her application for compensation for herself and her three children after the death of her former husband in 1972. The woman had been divorced from her husband but then had resumed living with him for seven years until three years before he died. At the time of divorce, she had obtained a Family Court order requiring her husband to pay support to her and her children. However, she had made no effort to enforce this order. The Board denied her application for benefits, stating that neither she nor her children were dependent on the deceased. The woman was, however, named as beneficiary in an insurance policy taken out by her husband one week before he died. Further, the Board had not considered a section of the Workers' Compensation Act which provides for compensation to children, widows or parents who, though not dependent on the deceased worker's earnings at the time of his death, had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit from the continuation of his life. I proposed that the Board consider whether the woman and her children had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit. The Board accepted my suggestion but maintained that the woman was not eligible as she was not the deceased's wife and therefore could not be his widow. In addition, the provisions concerning compensation for common-law spouses were not applicable to her situation. The Board agreed to pay compensation to the children in the amount of $1500, together with interest on that sum. CS 81-155 We find no cause, but pain persists I received a complaint from a worker concerning the Board's refusal to reopen his claim. The Board did not consider him disabled and the symptoms which he experienced were deemed not to be related to his compensable injury. From a review of the available medical evidence, it appeared that the Board's decision not to award this worker further benefits was correct. None of the many doctors who had examined him overthe years was able to find objective evidence to account for his complaints of severe pain "and disability. These were slight residual deformities but these were not considered to be of sufficient magnitude to cause the worker severe pain or to be in any way disabling. This decision was affirmed in 91 appeals to the boards of review, the Commissioners of the Board, and a Medical Review Panel. Despite the fact that I was unable to substantiate the physical aspect of this worker's complaint, I wrote to the Board pursuant to Section 14 (2) of the Ombudsman Act which permits me to consult with an authority at any time during or after an investigation in an attempt to settle a complaint. In view of the lack of medical evidence to account for the worker's complaints, and his insistence that he was suffering pain to a disabling degree, it occurred to me that "chronic pain syndrome" might be a factor in his delayed recovery. In view of this possibility, I suggested that the Board refer the worker either to a psychologist at the Board or to a specialist outside the Board for a psychological examination to determine whether there was any psychological disability related to his injury. The Commissioners had the worker's claim reviewed by a Board psychologist to determine whether he might have a chronic pain syndrome or other psychological disability arising from his injury. The psychologist was unable to find any such indication. I concluded that the Board had exhausted possible solutions to the complaint. CS 81-156 Full disability, full pension I received a complaint from an injured worker who felt that the permanent pension awarded to him by the Board was not a fair reflection of his disability. Although the memo written by the Disability Awards Officer stated that the worker was totally unemployable, the Board found that 30% of his disability was due to noncompensable factors. These factors were not specified. Board files suggested that the worker had personality traits which predisposed him to a tension-stress reaction to his compensable injury. I pointed out that the worker had enjoyed good health and had had a good work record before being injured. I concluded that the Board's decision to accept only 70% responsibility for the worker's total unem- ployability might be unjust and, moreover, appeared to be contrary to the Board's policy as outlined in the Claims Adjudication Manual. The Commissioners agreed that whatever his personalty type, the man had shown no evidence of being disabled before his injury. Therefore, they decided that the worker's permanent disability should be assessed at 100% and that his pension should be recalculated accordingly. CS 81-157 Damage didn't start with Review Board finding I received a complaint from a worker who disagreed with the Board's decision not to backdate disability benefits prior to the date of a favourable Medical Review Panel decision. _92 , The worker injured his lower back while woritH Wage loss benefits were terminated one year lata as the worker was no longer considered disabled; This decision was confirmed by a Medical Review Panel. A year later, new evidence became available as a result of surgery. However, the Board refused the worker's request to reconvene the Medical Review Panel as it considered this evj; dence did not justify a reconvening of the Panel. Once again the worker asked for a reconsiders tion. This time the Commissioners agreed that the report based on the surgery was valid new evidence, but they allowed the worker's claim without reconvening a Panel. The worker received a letter from the Board stating that the benefits awarded him as a result of the Commissioners' decisis could not be backdated prior to the Medical Review Panel Certificate as the Certificate was, by law, binding on the Board. In my judgment, the condition found at surgery must have existed since the time of the worker^ injury and, as the worker had consistently complained of pain and disablement since the timed his injury, it was unjust and unfair to uphold the Medical Review Panel decision that the worker was not disabled during the period from the date benefits were terminated until the Medical Review Panel decision. The Board agreed that they should have reconvened the Panel rather than making the decision themselves, and agreed that there was some inconsistency in agreeing to pay benefits for the period afterthe Medical Review Panel's Certificate but not the period prior to it. Finally, they agreed to my recommendation that the Panel be reconvened. However, the results are not yet known as the implementation of my recommendation has been postponed pending the results of an appeal to the boards of review by the worker on another issue. CS 81-158 Who's making the decisions here anyway? A man complained to me that although his appeal to a board of review had been successful, the Workers' Compensation Board persisted in refusing to pay him compensation. My investigation revealed that the Board's original decision was that, as of March 1978, the worker would receive no more compensation for his knee injury. A board of review panel concluded that the worker remained partially disabled from March 1978 until September 1978 and stated that he should receive wage loss benefits for that period. Following the decision of the boards of review, the complainant was informed by his Claims Adjudicator that, as he could have found employment paying more than wage loss benefitiaH would not receive compensation for that period. bcluded that the Board had acted improperly jfusing to pay benefits as the boards of review 1 already reviewed the evidence concerning (availability of employment to the worker, and i concluded that he was entitled to hpensation. j Commissioners agreed with me that there ; no authority under the Workers' Compensa- i Act for refusal to implement a board of rev's decision without first referring the decision he Commissioners. The result of my investiga- ■ was the payment to the worker of full wage s benefits for the period from March to Septem- ■ 1978. 131-159 hical Review Panel answer reviewed his case we explored the difficult question of Irelationship between Medical Review Panels ■ the rest of the Board. The complainant said I the Board had refused to accept respon- I ity for an operation which he believed was fctly related to a prior compensable injury and fcery. The Board, stated that it was bound by Handings of a Medical Review Panel which ■id the worker fit. I/ever, the doctor who performed the second Iration stated that there was a direct causal fconship between the first and second opera- K. We brought this to the attention of the Board and pointed out Board policy that a decision of a Medical Review Panel is conclusive unless new evidence becomes available. The Commissioners reconsidered the claim and resolved the complaint by also accepting responsibility for the second operation. CS 81-160 New evidence on old knee damage I received a complaint from a worker who had injured his knee at work in 1953. Although he received some wage loss benefits from the Board at that time, he was denied continuing benefits on the basis that there was no medical evidence of any permanent knee damage. The complainant had suffered from knee pain and stiffness from the time of his accident until 1978, at which time an orthopedic surgeon operated on his knee, discovered the cause of his problems, and repaired the damage. On submitting this new medical evidence to the Board, the worker was told that there was no authority to review a decision previously made. We obtained a letter from the complainant's doctor indicating that the damage which he had repaired was very likely caused by his 1953 work injury. I then proposed to the Board that the worker's 1953 claim be reopened and reconsidered. The Commissioners quickly notified me WCt> ssessment APPEALS We HAVE A BEAUTIFUL STRUCTURE. HERE AT WCS. ...FINE DECISJON-HAk IN& fROCpSSES... A WELL- ORGANIZED ' SYSTEM OF APPEA1 1 Ti a O.Jj f 4 \ m -f£. w ■\ v< V \ 1 J L & !% A PITY THAT We CAN'T SHARE JE pEAUT/OF OUR APPEAL T STffM WITH THE PuBUC. BUT YOU KNOW WHAT THE" PUBUC IS J-lkE-. ONCE PEOPLE KNOW ABOl/T THE PROCEDURE... They'll vwwtto USE |T I 93 that they acknowledged the error made in his claim, and agreed to refer the complainant back to a Claims Adjudicator for reconsideration. CS 81-161 Minimum error A motel operator who had purchased a business in December was assessed a $25 minimum assessment for the calendar year by the Board's Assessment Department. The complainant was unable to persuade the Board to have this minimum reduced to reflect the fact that he had only operated the business for one month of the year. A regulation made following the Act provided for a minimum assessment of $10 for a calendar year or portion of it. A "Board Authorization", however, increased this amount to $25. The Board's actions were contrary to law. I proposed successfully that the Board vary their assessment of the motel to comply with the regulation and refund $15 to the complainant. Other employers in the same position were not refunded $15 as the cost of processing would be unjustifiably high. As a result of this investigation the Board also agreed to publish changes concerning assessments in the W.C.B. News and W.C.B. Reporter Series. ered the manager's husband to be an employeec. the owner due to the fact that the husband's services were required as a prerequisite to the owner's contract with the manager. The final question was whether the employee's injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. The Board concluded that it had for several reasons. The injury occurred on the premises of the employer. The injury occurred in the process of doing something for the benefit of the employejf Finally, the injury occurred in the course of actir» in response to instructions from the employer. As the evidence relating to the instructions given by the owner to his employee was conflicting, the Board was guided by one of its former decisions which states that where it is found that the actions taken by a worker were unauthorized, the most appropriate test to follow is whether or not the actions of the worker resulting in injury appear to have been done bona fide to advance the employer's interests. In this case, it appeared that the actions of the worker did advance his employer's interests. I found this complaint unsubstantiated as there was no administrative error or injustice in the Board's decision to charge the owner of the apartment block with the costs of his employee's injuffl| CS 81-162 Owner foots the bill The owner of an apartment block complained about the Assessment Department's decision to charge him with the costs of his employee's husband's work related injury. The owner of the apartment block employed a woman as manager, on the condition that her husband would assist with maintenance of the building. After several attempts to have a broken lock repaired by a locksmith, and then by a carpenter, the manager's husband attempted to repair the door himself and, in the process, injured his foot. The owner was not aware that he was operating a firm within the scope of the Workers' Compensation Act and therefore was obliged to register Since he had not registered, he was charged with the costs of the injury. The Act requires an employer who has defaulted on his coverage to repay the Board's expenditures on behalf of an employee injured during the period of default. The Act further provides that the Board may relieve the employer of his liability where the default was excusable. The Board did not feel that the failure to register in this case was excusable as the owner had operated the firm for six years and it was felt that this afforded ample time to discover and fulfill his responsibilities under the legislation. In addition, the Board consid- 94 CS 81-163 Is a gas bar a service station? I received a complaint concerning the Assessment Department's classification of a service station. The operator said his firm should not be charged the rate for a full fledged service station as his firm only sold gas. It is the Board's policy to classify firms by the industry in which the firm is engaged. In this case, both gas bars and service stations fall under the general category of automotive industry and are charged a common rate. The Board does not classify by occupations and is reluctant to proceed to a system of classification by occupation as it is felt that, although this system might be more equitable, the high cost of administration would eliminate any economic benefits which might result from a change in systems. However, in 1980 the Board instituted a new system of clas|- fication called industry rating. The change was based on the premise that certain industries within the same subclass do not create similar compensation costs. Therefore, the Board decided to base the contribution from each industry on its individual payroll and previous year's claims cost. A subclass average will still be calculated. However, individual industry rates will vary from the average according to the previous years claims cost. Very similar industries such as those engaged in the manufacturing of envelopes and 1'e manufacturing of stationery will continue to .are a common rate. I hough the Board's new rating system will come lo effect gradually, at some point in the future Is bars may be assigned a rate separate from Irvice stations. lonsidered this complaint to be substantiated. Ijwever, since the Board is in the process of Inedying the inequity complained of, I decided It to make a recommendation to the Board. J81-164 r meowner nailed by the Board I'omeowner who had had his house framed by a lour contractor was afraid that he would be [arged with the cost, or a portion of the cost, of a |rker's accident. The Board had decided that I homeowner was the prime contractor and em- Iyer of the labour contractor. The homeowner Ited that he had been advised by the labour jitractor that he had coverage through the lard, but this proved not to be the case. In this a ation, the Board regards the labour contractor ka worker of the prime contractor who in this s.e is the homeowner. The Workers' Compensa- hi Act provides that an employer who neglects hnake a payroll return to the Board or who re- ass to pay an assessment is liable to pay the Inpensation costs. As the homeowner was ong to appeal and had hired a lawyer, he did not need our help himself. However, we asked the Board to clarify its requirements so that other homeowners would understand their obligations towards their construction crews. My office contacted the Information Services Department of the Board, and suggested that as the general public entering contracts would not be aware of their obligations, it would be a good idea to communicate this information, perhaps through the Yellow Pages. Information Services agreed to place advertisements in the Yellow Pages throughout the Province under appropriate headings such as Contractors, Plumbers, Roofers. Below is a sample of the advertisement. ARE ALL THE WORKERS COVERED? OR ARE YOU LIABLE FOR THE COST OF COMPENSATION? If a worker is injured on your job—and you do not have W.C.B. coverage—you may be liable for any claims cost. Be safe. Be sure all workers are covered. For more information, contact the Assessment Pepartment in the nearest W.C.B. office. ® WORKERS' COMPENSATION 5255 Heather Street, Vancouver, B.C. 266-0211 lU-165 »y orker complained that he had been waiting en months for a decision from the boards of &w on an appeal from an adjudicator of the <ers' Compensation Board. His lawyer had acted the boards of review a number of times irding the delay, but the decision had not yet i sent to him. I notified the Administrative Chairman of the boards of review that, in my opinion, the complaint was substantiated and the worker had suffered undue delay in receiving his decision. I also asked that every effort be made to deliver the decision to the complainant immediately. The Chairman replied that the decision had been delayed pending the signature of a former board member and informed me that the decision had 95 just been completed and mailed to the complainant. The Chairman also explained that although he was personally concerned about delays at the boards of review, he did not feel that this case was typical as the issues involved had required an especially thorough investigation by the Panel. CS 81-166 Speed shows compassion A man needed a quick decision from the boards of review. His family was on welfare in Ontario. He had arranged to return to Ontario that week, but he felt certain that the Panel's decision would not be available in the immediate future. We contacted the Chairman of the Panel hearinS the appeal. Because of the complainant's imperil ding return to Ontario and the desirability of having a hearing before his departure, she arranges a special hearing early the following week. TwS hours after the hearing, the complainant received a telephone call, saying a favourable decisioj had been made. Hats off to a speedy resolutidj and compassionate handling of a problem by all authority having to deal with requests for priorifl every day. FUTURE JURISDICTION & NON-JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITIES During 1981, 284 people brought me complaints against unproclaimed authorities listed in Sections 3-11 of the Schedule to the Ombudsman Act. Where I am able to help reverse grave injustices brought to me, I do so. I have two basic methods. First, my staff have information on private agencies and other resources equipped to solve special kinds of problems. Sometimes I have directed complainants to government agencies able to deal with their grievance, or to their Member of Parliament, M.L.A., or local officials. A lack of space prevents me from giving a wider sampling of interesting non-jurisdictional complaints. Five cases will provide some insight. CS 81-167 A real lemon A self-employed man bought a second-hand long-distance hauling truck from a major car dealer. He was told that the truck had been repossessed from the previous owner for failure to keep up with payments and that he was entitled to inherit the two months remaining on the new-vehicle warranty. Shortly after purchase the complainant became aware of numerous serious defects in the truck. Some repairs were made under the terms of the warranty but these were never done to the complainant's satisfaction. Once the warranty expired, the manufacturer denied all responsibility. The complainant was very frustrated and angry. By the time he came to my office, he had amassed some $11,000 in repair costs and had learned that the original owner had refused to 96 make payments because of the defects in tha truck. Because the complainant had purchased the truck for business purposes, he was not protected by provincial consumer legislation. My assista™ contacted several consumer groups who were unable to offer him any assistance. The Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development exS pressed an interest in helping the complainarH resolve his problem informally, but did not feel in a position to be of real benefit to him when presented with a list of defects and repairs. We twice heard the suggestion that the complainant shoula paint yellow lemons all over his truck and park it in front of the car dealer's office. My only alternatiwl was to refer the complainant to a lawyer to brinM suit against the car dealer. The previous owner had already done so and had won some money in an out of court settlement. This complaint is a fairly typical example of horn small businessmen are not protected by existing! consumer legislation. It is an area that I hope wffl be addressed in the near future by government CS 81-168 Revenue Canada: SIN nightmare A young man came to my office to discuss ttil ongoing difficulties he was having with the federal government and with private agencies: these related to a case of mistaken identity. The complainant had immigrated to Canada in 1973 and had applied for a social insurance number. Unfortunately, when Health and Welfare Canada issued him his card, an identical card was mistakenly sent to another man with the same name. The her man assumed he had been assigned a new iicial insurance number and began to use it ac- |>rdingly. Despite an attempt to resolve the prob- m in 1976, Revenue Canada continued to as- fss our complainant for the other man's earn- jgs. In addition, several private insurance Smpanies and one medical benefits plan had e identical social insurance number on file for >ch of the two men and continued to confuse eir contributions. b contacted representatives from Revenue Can- fa who separated the two taxation files and Can- la Pension Plan contributions. They ensured lat the other man was using his correct (first) Icial insurance number. Revenue Canada repre- Intatives also contacted each of the two men's rmer employers and private insurance complies to ensure that they had the correct num- I rs on file. We also spoke to the chief of social [surance numbers issuance and control in Ithurst, New Brunswick, who was willing to iDvide our complainant with a letter saying that I was the only legitimate holder of the number in lestion. le Ombudsman Act does not provide me with I authority to investigate complaints against the ■eral government. However, Revenue Canada ■sonnel gave prompt attention to my questions I this matter and I would like to thank them, ■spite federal safeguards to ensure that infor- ■tion gathered by the use of social insurance ■nbers is kept confidential, human or computer pr can still result in an invasion of privacy and lonvenience. 1181-169 Hiding assistance ■ny report last year I discussed the problem of a Brian who was denied a student loan on the psis of residency requirements between B.C. Uj Alberta. The problem has arisen more than ere in the past year also. In one case, a young Uman was accepted as a student in the Faculty nDentistry at the University of Alberta. She made ■Kiiries about her eligibility for a student loan mwas told that as a B.C. resident, she would tplify for a B.C. student loan but not for one from Herta. She was distressed to learn this, as British tlumbia has a$3,800 ceiling on all student loans vie Alberta has a $6,800 ceiling for students Boiled in professional programmes. Although Pl.ious to enroll in the University, she felt that she bid not be able to meet the expenses, quired about provincial student loan applica- s and found the complainant's information to : correct. Applicants who have not been living =pendently for at least four years are consid- d to be residents in the same province in which r parents reside. However, although technically a British Columbia resident, the complainant had only actually lived in British Columbia for one year. She had been educated in Alberta until her last year of high school, moved with her parents to British Columbia at that time, and then, after graduation, moved back to Alberta to complete a two year pre-dental programme. We spoke to the head of the Student Finance Board at the University of Alberta. He agreed to consider her application on the basis of her extensive residence in Alberta. When the complainant provided him with proof of residence, she was delighted to learn that her loan application would be accepted. CS 81-170 Mayor uses muscle to bend rule on suites A woman wanted to build for her disabled father an in-law suite in her house in a single family dwelling zoning area. She felt that if this was not permitted, her father would have no choice but to move into a nursing home. When she approached the municipality, she was told that this would be impossible as the municipality no longer approved in-law suites. The complainant was willing to sign an affidavit that the suite would only be used by her parents, but municipal officials were not willing to consider this. The complainant had already contacted her M.L.A. who discussed the problem with the Mayor of the Municipality. The Mayor saw to it that the inlaw suite was allowed with the proviso that it only be used by the complainant's parents. CS 81-171 Registered Nurses Association of B.C. A registered nurse from Newfoundland applied for registration with the Registered Nurses Association of British Columbia and was rejected on the ground that she did not have sufficient psychiatric training. She was advised that she would have to complete a 10-week course in psychiatry at the British Columbia Institute of Technology. The next available course was not scheduled to begin for eight months. The nurse felt that the requirements of the Registered Nurses Association of British Columbia were unfair. She further complained that she could not understand why she could not work as a "graduate nurse" pending registration. The Registrar of the Nurses Association told us that the Association requires all applicants for registration to have completed a course in psychiatry. The Registrar offered to meet with the complainant to review her qualifications and to assist her in understanding the requirements of the Association. I passed this information on to the complainant. 97 PART IV CHANGES IN PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES ACCEPTED BY AUTHORITIES MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD 1. The Ministry agreed to inform individuals adversely affected by decisions of the Farm Income Insurance Program of their right to appeal (see "Procedures beefed up"—CS 81-005). MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 1. The Ministry of the Attorney General agreed to provide tapes to court reporters to use as backup to their shorthand notes. The tapes will be the property of the Ministry and when a reporter leaves the Ministry's employment the tapes as well as the notes will remain with the Ministry (see "The case of the missing transcript"— CS 81-007). 2. The Court Services Division accepted and adopted as policy a solicitor's opinion that the Small Claim Act does not preclude a plaintiff from serving a summons by registered mail (see "Small Claims and self help"—CS 81-013). 3. The Corrections Branch agreed to develop a statement of policy and procedures for disciplinary hearings. Included will be new forms designed to guide the questions asked at the hearings. The result should be fair, consistent decisions based on complete, accurate facts (see "A duty to be fair: even in jails!"—CS 81-017). ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 1. The Assessment Authority agreed to seek amendment to the prescribed standards for farm classification in order to end ambiguities in the standards. The Authority also agreed to take steps to resolve apparent inequities in the administration of the farm classification system. MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS 1. The Rentalsman issued a policy guideline so that if he is slow in approving a rent increase, tenants will still get the notice of increase they are entitled to (see "Justice delayed is justice denied"— CS 81-031). 2. The Rentalsman reminded his officers to keep their promises and, when unable to do so, to communicate their inability to complainants (see "Promises, promises . . ."—CS 81-030). 99 MINISTRY OF ENERGY, MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES 1. The Chief Inspector of Mines issued a directive to all the Ministry's mine inspectors and resident engineers, stating that a. where new forms or bonds are required for the first time, notice of these requirements should be given to affected miners well before the start of the mining season, and b. a simplified procedure should be used for issuing mining permits during the mining season, in order to minimize delays. 2. The Ministry agreed to seek amendment to the Mining (Placer) Act to allow for formal hearings on matters concerning placer mining leases. If these are approved, a provision for retroactivity will be included so that current problems and complaints can be heard (see "Holes in the seamless web of the law"— CS 81-039). 3. On the Ombudsman's recommendation, the Mediation and Arbitration Board obtained legal advice on the interpretation of s.11 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. The result was that a complainant now has a more suitable length of time to renegotiate a lease. MINISTRY OF FORESTS 1. The Ministry of Forests agreed to correct a provision in the Log Salvage Regulations which had been poorly worded, and which appeared to have the effect of allowing thousands of people each to hold 10% of the shares in an organization (see "Strange arithmetic in log salvage regs."— CS 81-058). 2. The Ministry of Forests agreed to add a clause to a standard tree-spacing contract which would explain the circumstances under which a contractor's deposit could be returned (see "Tree- spacing contracts clarified"— CS 81-059). 3. The Ministry of Forests revised its practice relating to decisions not to renew grazing permits. The Ministry will now provide individuals in danger of losing their permits with information held by the Ministry and the opportunity of a full and fair hearing (see "Grazing permits: the right to be 'herd'"—CS 81-063). ll GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE RELATIONS BUREAU 1. The Government Employee Relations Bi| reau (G.E.R.B.) decided to pay fee-forf service accounts of psychologists providi ing assessments for the Forensic Psychil atric Services Commission. Originally, it was decided that since the fee-for-servicti fee was higher than the negotiated sessional fee, those accounts would not be processed. G.E.R.B., after represents! tions from the Ministry of Health and as a result of my investigation, paid the out} standing accounts. MINISTRY OF HEALTH 1. The Ministry of Health changed its policy to allow a resident access to the resuH of water tests pertaining to his or her specific approved water supply (see "Privacy v. access to information''^ CS 81-065). 2. The Ministries of Health and Human Resources informed their staffs that an amendment to the Community Care Facilities Licensing Act was in force. This amendment permits an unlicensed day care facility to provide care to more tha two children if the children are siblirM (see "Rule change keeps family together"—CS 81-075). 3. The Ministry of Health provided funds for the Cancer Control Agency to purchase several Jobst pumps. These relieve discomfort of patients recovering frorrH radical mastectomy operation (see "Ministry finds a way"— CS 81-070). I 4. The Ministry of Health formulated guidelines for assessors to use in evaluating and assigning contracts to horrH care agencies. These guidelines weiel circulated to homecare agencies and Long Term Care administrators (see "Homemaker rules need polishing1™ CS81-066). 5. A task force was established for the MI istries of Health and Universities, Science and Communications to help resolve problems with the telephone sM tern at the Ministry of Health (see "Nobody home"— CS 81-064). 6. The Ministry of Health changed its polif so that members of religious orders who had taken vows of perpetual poveH would not be disqualified for premM assistance on the basis of those vom (see "No-nonsense nuns and the fine print"—CS 81-072). 100 ll 7. The Ministry of Health and the Public Service Commission agreed to clarify the requirements for community care nurses in job advertisements. It was also agreed to apply the same recruitment and selection standards to auxiliary and regular employees. 8. The Medical Services Commission established an informal review mechanism for persons denied medical insurance for unusual or unorthodox medical treatment. 9. The Medical Services Commission changed its policy to include as a benefit under the Medical Plan the costs of gender reassignment surgery for patients completing the Gender Identity Clinic Program at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry or other equivalent programs (see "Surgery denied? Review now possible"—CS 81-068). 10. The Division of Vital Statistics stopped requiring a court order to prove legal custody of a child for an application to change a child's name. An affidavit is now sufficient. 11. The Ministry of Health agreed to recommend several changes to the Vital Statistics Act and the Name Act. These include changes to allow for the registration at a child's birth of a hyphenated last name. Further a married couple could choose to register their child under the mother's last name rather than the father's. Also to be considered for revision is the provision that permits a married woman to change her name only to her husband's surname, her maiden name, or her surname prior to marriage. A further request was that a change be made in the Act to allow a remarried woman to apply to change the surname of her children of whom she has custody. Also included was a change to allow an unmarried father who has custody of his children to change their names. MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES 1. The Ministry established an internal committee to review policy on provision of Income Assistance Benefits to transient applicants. As a result, policy on the question was re-written to provide clarification on eligibility. 2. The Ministry altered its daycare policy to allow for the provision of subsidized day care by aunts, uncles, cousins, and other family members. 3. The Ministry developed and distributed a "GAIN-Appeal Procedures" poster which outlines the applicant's/recipient's right to appeal decisions on eligibility for income assistance. The Ministry assured me that these posters would be prominently displayed in the waiting areas of all local offices (see "Appeal information revisited"— CS 81-077). 4. The Ministry agreed to monitor some S.A.F.E.R. recipients who appeared to misunderstand the program, to personalize collection procedures when an overpayment occurs, and to gear correspondence to the needs of the elderly (see "New procedure safer for clients"— CS 81-083). 5. The Ministry of Human Resources agreed to add a section to its Family and Children's Service Field Manual, outlining a complaint procedure to be used by foster parents. The complaint procedure will also be included in the Foster Parents' Manual which is being developed in cooperation with Ministry staff by the B.C. Federation of Foster Parents Associations. 6. The Ministry agreed to revamp the reporting form on income assistance cheque stubs so that it would be clear what action and what information the Ministry expected from the recipient. 7. The Ministry restated several policies in an effort to promote consistent practice across the Province. In particular, the Ministry reminded staff that: a. each case must be assessed individually before denying income assistance because the applicant has quit his or her job or is not actively seeking work; b. people must be notified of their right to appeal the income assistance decisions; and c. there is provision for extraordinary assistance to people in hardship. 8. The Ministry agreed to attach explanatory memoranda to separation reports, directing selection panels to consider an applicant's total record of service with the Ministry in making any personnel selection decisions and to disregard notations on old personnel files like "Not to be rehired" (see "Secret directive spoils job chances"—CS 81-084). 101 MINISTRY OF LANDS, PARKS AND HOUSING 1. The Eligibility Committee established under the Home Purchase Assistance Branch agreed to consider a Band Council Office an agent of the Minister for the purposes of receiving a grant application. An applicant would not then be denied assistance if, because Ministry policy requires that the Band Council attest to the applicant's eligibility, the application did not reach the Committee within the time limit (see "Homeowners get their grant"— CS 81-100). 2. The Deputy Minister told field staff of the Regional Operations Division to inform applicants for Crown land that they should not become involved in the land referral process until a full report of the availability of the land had been prepared by the Ministry. This would prevent applicants from wasting time and effort in attempting to persuade other agencies consulted by the Ministry not to object to the disposition requested by the applicants. 3. The Deputy Minister decided to review a recent Ministry policy which provides that the first qualifying applicant for an agricultural lease of Crown land is entitled to purchase the land without participating in an auction. I had expressed concern that the new policy could improperly discriminate against previously disallowed applicants. MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS 1. The Inspector of Municipalities agreed to- ensure that the policies and guidelines for carrying out investigations of citizens' complaints will adhere to rules of procedural fairness (see "Inspector's investigations inspected"— CS 81-103). MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS 1. The Motor Vehicle Branch (M.V.B.) agreed to abolish its practice of refusing to permit the transfer of a vehicle from an individual to a relative. The policy had applied to individuals who owed l.C.B.C. premiums for driver penalty points (see "Intimate transfers"—CS 81-120). 2. The M.V.B. agreed to inform people required to take a driver's re-examination that they have the right to know the real sons why they have been asked for a rel examination, and an opportunity to com! ment (see "Driver can rebut claim he's unl fit"—CS 81-116). 3. The Ministry agreed to consider reconH mending amendments to the Motor VehS cle Act so that personal driver record infol mation would only be available to person! with a legitimate right to obtain such information. 4. The M.V.B. agreed to change letters sen! to drivers suspended because of tha abuse of alcohol. Letters will now show what action will be required before the III cence is reinstated (see "Tell 'em like it is"—CS 81-118). 5. The Ministry undertook to seek amencH ment to the Motor Vehicle Act Regulation so that persons who used the "T" type of spare tire, now commonly issued witll North American automobiles, would not be in violation of the Regulation. 6. The M.V.B. agreed to retain for five years foreign drivers' licences surrendered to the Branch. A person returning to his naf tive country could then obtain his drivera license for use during his visit home (see "Driver gets foreign licence back"H CS 81-115). 7. The M.V.B. agreed that, before refusing a licence on medical grounds, the Branca would inform the applicant of its tentativa opinion that the applicant was not medl cally fit to drive and the reasons for thai opinion. The Branch will also invite such persons to provide further informal™ concerning their medical condition, if the licence is needed for work, and the physical demands of their job. 8. The M.V.B. agreed that the presence of a removable rear seat in a motor vehm which would otherwise be eligible for a commercial classification was not a suitable basis for refusing commercial plates (see "The pleasures of purple gas"— CS 81-121). B.C. HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY 1. B.C. Hydro formalized its policy corf cerning collection procedures as they apply to separated couples (see "SeparalM couples treated separately™ CS 81-139). 102 ISURANCE CORPORATION OF B.C. 1. The Insurance Corporation of B.C. agreed to pay an inconvenience payment to motorists who, because of the strike, were kept waiting more than 30 days for refunds on cancelling their insurance. The rate of interest will be at 15% per year prorated (see "What's sauce for the goose . . ."— CS 81-144). 2. In order to prevent release of confidential driving record information by l.C.B.C. to parties other than the party to whom the information pertains, the Corporation issued a directive to the Driver Penalty Point Premium Department to request the birth- date of the caller in addition to his/her name and driver's licence number. /ORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD 1. The Workers' Compensation Board established a new practice in cases where pension payments are being seized by the Board in order to recover debts. The Pensions Branch will now advise the Collections Branch when the pension is adjusted, or a cost of living increase is made. The Collections Branch will keep pensioners informed of how much they still owe and how much has been credited to pay off the outstanding overpayment (see "Proper accounting"— CS 81-153). 2. The Workers' Compensation Board has agreed to clarify the present policy of issuing advance rulings on proposals for exercise programs. They will include a statement in the Reporter Series that such rulings will be available to employers throughout the province (see "Board agrees to think ahead"— CS 81-152). 3. The Workers' Compensation Board has agreed to the following changes in the area of appeal notification: a. The Board will now advise workers that decisions made by Legal Officers are appealable; b. The appeal paragraph in decision letters will be revised to improve advice and clarity; and c. The Board will include an explanation of how to obtain a Medical Review Panel appeal in the general appeals pamphlet. The Information Services Department of the Workers' Compensation Board agreed to place advertisements concerning the contractual obligations of the general public with respect to workers' compensation. The advertisements will appear in the yellow pages throughout B.C. under headings such as Contractors, Plumbers, and Roofers (see "Homeowner nailed by the Board"—CS 81-164). The Workers' Compensation Board agreed to alter its practice of charging a minimum assessment of $25 per year; the Regulation lists the minimum assessment as $10 per year. The Board also agreed to publish this and similar changes in the W.C.B. News and W.C.B. Reporter Series (see "Minimum error"— CS 81-161). The First Aid Section of the Industrial Health and Safety Division of the Workers' Compensation Board agreed to the following procedural changes: a. The Division agreed to advise applicants for certification that further medical information may be required even if all the standard medical forms are completed. b. The Division agreed to add a sentence to the letters sent to persons applying for initial certification, and to subsequent acceptance letters, advising that failure to meet medical criteria will not necessarily result in disqualification, as reasons for noncompliance will also be considered when provided. c. The Division agreed to add a paragraph to decision letters advising applicants of their rights of appeal (see "Controlled disease no bar to first aid work"—CS 81-151). 103 PARTY TALK BACK CORRESPONDENCE FROM COMPLAINANTS would advise anyone having trouble with the blic servants, don't go to the Ombudsman, it's me getting bit by a rattlesnake, and then going to mother rattlesnake to complain about the We."(letter to a newspaper) mwas interested to know that my complaint was WI being considered .. . and look forward to a opy ending. I think your office is a very neces- my institution in our highly bureaucratic society." mankyou for all the time and effort that you have m forth on our behalf. It certainly has been a great wisolation just speaking with you.. . . It is unformate that the Ombudsman does not as yet have Wsdiction over local government. We personally ml that his intervention at this level could avoid mny of the frustrations and complications that we ! sure many residents of British Columbia have -:ommon with ourselves." i<ank you for everything you have done for us so \nevermind we haven't been successful but still I> have tried in everywaypossible. Funny isn't it? w don't know me and vice versa, but seems as tugh throughout all of our phone conversation il little chit-chat, I feel as though we've met and •j'w one another." I. if the ministry did not bother to check this out, wily substantiates my complaint about theirlack- tvisical approach to the whole matter. I am terri- Hdisappointed about your office taking the Min- m/'s statement rather than that of the complaint. But then this is what bureaucracies are all itut—lots of pompous verbosity but little action." M. "Excellent work. You have succeeded in squeezing information out of the Branch that they would not provide me. Now I can see the proper action to take. . . . You have done much more than I ever expected, or that my own case probably deserved. This is responsive government and democracy at work. . . . Please convey my thanks to those on your staff who did any leg-work. You have my heartfelt thanks." "The first part of the complaint was dealt with fairly quickly and in a letter dated 23rd January 1981, you informed me that the remainder of our concerns would be investigated. On 10th March 1981, I made a further submission. . . We have not heard from your office since.. . . fortunately I am not paranoid or I would doubtless believe that multinationals controlled every department of government including yours." "I am dismayed at your opinion yet not discouraged, justice will prevail—eventually—It merely takes time, perhaps I shall not live to see it yet I shall have done my part." "I would also like to say thank you to your staff who never let me give up hope that things could be changed slowly but surely. We always got a call when our family needed it the most." "Perhaps you are disappointed in not obtaining equity on all matters, but you certainly assisted a great deal in removing the worst obstacles that originally faced Garibaldi property owners in their negotiations with the Government." 105 "A lawyer whose first name was Judith helped us and I am glad to say that a small boy has a chance even the freedom to become the best person he is capable of being." "Your conclusion that my complaint has merit pleases me, but I am concerned that the strength of your two recommendations is inadequate under the circumstances. You have already advised the Deputy Minister of the content of these recommendations, and I fear that there is no likelihood of their being changed. I am surprised that your office would express its recommendations to the appropriate ministry before seeking the opinion of the complaining party. Is the function of the Ombudsman more that of a mediator rather than a representative of a complaining party .. ?" "We concur with your assessment that the specifics of our complaint have been satisfied and that the ministry policy represents some effort to avoid the kind of problems experienced at Buckley Bay .. . The Baynes Sound Protection Committee! wishes to express its thanks and appreciation Urn you for the service you have rendered the public in investigating our complaint in this matter. It is our feeling that your perseverance in the case hasnm only resolved the particular difficulties at Buckleyi Bay, but also gone some way towards improving! similar land-use decisions in British Columbiam "You helped me hang on to my money And I sure do thank you Honey; Now my kid can stay in school a while Thanks to you and your work on my file. You took my complaint and went to work From your duties, you didn't shirk; Phone calls here and letters there You saved my cupboards from staying bare. Heather is happy—day care is paid— / hope you know the difference you made. Thanks Sue for all that you did, I thank you and so does my kid!!!" "Bless the Ombudsman." 106 .BLE1 ofile of Complainants, and Complaints osed Between January 1,1981 and December 31, 5MPLAINANT/ lOUP 1981 IMPLAINT TIATOR lATOR'S GENDER i CONTACT l/IPLAINT IATED AT Number Percent Individual/Family 4,347 91.23 Business 201 4.22 Union 9 0.19 Group 148 3.11 Public Servant 12 0.25 Others 48 1.00 TOTAL 4,765 100.00 Aggrieved Party 4,219 88.54 Relative/Friend 331 6.94 MLAand MP 27 0.57 Professional 76 1.60 Ombudsman 44 0.92 Public Servant 17 0.36 Others 51 1.07 TOTAL 4,765 100.00 Male 2,752 57.76 Female 1,788 37.52 Family 113 2.37 Group/Other 112 2.35 TOTAL 4,765 100.00 In Person 1,012 21.24 Letter 801 16.81 Telephone 2,915 61.17 Not Applicable 37 0.78 TOTAL 4,765 100.00 Victoria Ombudsman Office 2,016 42.31 Vancouver Ombudsman Office 2,395 50.26 Local Visit 354 7.43 TOTAL 4,765 100.00 107 BRITISH COLUMBIA REGIONAL DISTRICTS Regional Districts 10. Cowichan Valley 20. North Okanagan 1. Alberni-Clayoquot 11. Dewdney-Alouette 21. Central Coast 2. Bulkley-Nechako 12. East Kootenay 22. Okanagan-Similkameen 3 Capital Region 13. Fraser-Cheam 23. Peace River-Liard 4. Cariboo 14. Fraser-Fort George 24 Powell River 5. Central Fraser Valley 15. Greater Vancouver 25. Skeena-Queen Charlotte 6. Central Kootenay 16. Kitimat-Stikine 26. Squamish-Lillooet 7. Central Okanagan 17. Kootenay-Boundary 27. Stikine Region (unincorporated) J 8 Columbia-Shuswap 18. Mount Waddington 28 Sunshine Coast 9. Comox-Strathcona 19. Nanaimo 29. Thompson-Nicola 108 BLE2 rcentage of Complaints osed by Regional District as of December 31,1981 Percentage of Percentage of Total B.C. Total Ombudsman Population Complaints Closed Regional Districts (October 1980) (as of Dec. 31.1981) 1. Alberni-Clayoquot 1.2 .7 2. Bulkley-Nechako 1.4 1.2 3. Capital Region 9.2 16.2 4. Cariboo 2.2 1.7 5. Central Fraser Valley 4.1 2.9 6. Central Kootenay 2.0 1.9 7. Central Okanagan 2.9 1.5 8. Columbia-Shuswap 1.4 1.7 9. Comox-Strathcona 2.5 1.9 10. Cowichan Valley 1.9 1.5 11. Dewdney-Alouette 2.2 1.9 12. East Kootenay 2.0 1.7 13. Fraser-Cheam 2.0 1.3 14. Fraser-Fort George 3.3 5.9 15. Greater Vancouver 42.8 41.2 16. Kitimat-Stikine 1.4 1.1 17. Kootenay-Boundary 1.2 .8 18. Mount Waddington .6 .6 19. Nanaimo 2.7 1.9 20. North Okanagan 1.9 1.3 21. Central Coast .2 .0 22. Okanagan-Similkameen 2.1 2.0 23. Peace River-Liard 2.1 1.9 24. Powell River .7 .5 25. Skeena-Queen Charlotte .9 1.1 26. Squamish-Lillooet .7 .9 27. Stikine Region (Unincorporated) .1 .1 28. Sunshine Coast .6 .4 29. Thompson-Nicola 3.7 2.9 Out-of-Province N/A 1.3 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 I 109 TABLE 3 Disposition of Complaints (Proclaimed Authorities) Closed Between January 1981 and December 1981 Declined Withdrawn Discontinued Resolved: Corrected during Investigation Substantiated: Corrected after Recommendation Substantiated but Not Rectified Not Substantiated A. MINISTRIES Agriculture and Food 7 3 18 1 4 33 Attorney General 157 86 9 0 106 358 Consumer and Corporate Affairs 119 52 3 2 36 212 Education 11 6 1 5 9 32 Environment 36 17 85 59 11 208 Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources 1 5 2 0 3 11 Finance 19 9 2 0 17 47 Forests 17 6 2 0 24 49 Health 51 21 12 0 25 109 Human Resources 174 126 5 1 85 391 Industry and Small Business Development 1 -'®L 0 0 2 3 Labour 18 8 1 0 8 35 Lands, Parks and Housing 17 26 3 0 31 77 Municipal Affairs 7 ."'.' 4 •*•« 1 2 11 25 Provincial Secretary 6 2 0 1 4 13 Tourism 1 0 0 0 1 2 Transportation and Highways 88 48 6 0 50 192 Universities, Science and Technology 2 1 0 0 0 3 420 150 71 427 1,800 PERCENT 40 67 8.33 3 95 23 72 100.0 1 110 VBLE 3—continued Resolved: Corrected Substantiated: Corrected Substan Declined during after tiated Not Withdrawn Investi Recommen but Not Substan Discontinued gation dation Rectified tiated TOTAL BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, ETC. Agricultural Land Commission 8 2 0 0 17 27 Alcohol and Drug Commission 4 1 0 0 0 5 Board of Industrial Relations 3 0 0 0 0 3 B.C. Assessment Authority 12 0 1 1 7 21 B.C. Assessment Appeal Board 1 0 0 0 4 5 3.C. Board of Parole 1 2 0 0 0 3 3.C. Buildings Corporation 2 0 0 0 1 3 B.C. Ferry Corporation 4 10 0 0 5 19 3.C. Housing Corporation 3 0 0 0 1 4 3.C. Hydro and Power Authority 19 20 1 0 9 49 3.C. Housing Management Commission 4 2 0 0 4 10 3.C. Police Commission 3 0 0 0 1 4 3.C. Railway 3 0 0 0 2 5 3.C. Systems Corporation 2 0 0 0 0 2 Compensation Consultant 0 2 0 0 1 3 Emergency Health Services Commission 1 0 0 0 1 2 Employers' Advisor 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 government Employee Relations 1 Bureau 2 0 0 0 0 2 Insurance Corporation of B.C. 112 74 0 0 51 237 labour Relations Board 4 1 0 0 14 19 ■rtedical Services Commission 4 11 2 0 12 29 l/lilk Board 0 0 3 0 1 4 Motor Carrier Commission 6 1 0 3a 0 0 7 fccean Falls Corporation 0 0 0 0 2 2 Jesticide Control Appeal Board 4 1 f,-jD-»« 1 0 6 ■Dilution Control Board 1 0 ^0 -, 0 1 2 ■rovincial Capital Commission 2 0 0 0 1 3 I'ublic Service Commission 8 3 1 0 9 21 Kent Review Commission 2 • 2 . 0; '■' 0 0 4 Superannuation Commission 5 6 -i-£« 0 7 19 workers' Compensation Board 223 33 16 0 91 363 B/CB Boards of Review 27 6 5 1 7 46 BTHERS 17 |pfF ■ 0 0 5 26 SUB-TOTAL 5 253 957 0.52 26,44 100.0 TOTALS A and B 1,220 601 180 74 682 2,757 PERCENT 44.25 21.80 6.53 2.68 24.74 100.0 111 TABLE 4 Extent of Service Complaints Against Unproclaimed Authorities (Sections 3-11 Schedule of the Ombudsman Act) Closed between January 1981 and December 1981 Extent of Service Information Inquiries No assistance provided/ made and necessary or Referral resolution possible arranged facilitated TOTAL 1 Government Corporations (excluding Boards and Commissions) 0 0 1 1 Municipalities (Section 4) 24 115 27 166 Regional Districts (Section 5) 7 35 9 51 Islands Trust 1 0 0 1 Public Schools (Section 7) 3 17 5 25 1 Universities (Section 8) 2 3 1 6 Colleges and Provincial Institutes (Section 9) 0 2 1 3 Hospital Boards (Section 10) 1 4 1 6 Professional and Occupational Associations (Section 11) 7 11 7 25 j TOTAL 45 187 52 284 j PERCENT 15.85 65.85 18.30 100 TABLE 5 Extent of Service Non-Jurisdictional Complaints Closed Between January 1981 and December 1981 Extent of Service Information Inquiries No assistance provided/ made and necessary or Referral resolution possible arranged facilitated TOTAL Federal, other provincial territorial and foreign governments 35 243 103 381 Marketplace matters- requests for personal assistance 90 597 141 828 Professionals' actions 11 87 9 107 Legal and Court matters 31 190 40 261 | Police matters 8 49 9 66 Miscellaneous 16 55 10 81 TOTAL 191 1,221 312 1,724 PERCENT 11.08 70.82 18.10 100 112 J TABLE 6 Reasons for Discontinuing Investigations All Jurisdictional Closed Complaints Reasons Number Percent 1. No Jurisdiction 2. Abandoned by Complainant 3. Withdrawn by Complainant 4. Statutory Appeal (Section 11 (1) (a)) "" Solicitor (Section 11 (1) (b)) Discontinued by Ombudsman (Discretionary) a) Over 1 year old 6 b) Insufficient personal interest 9 c) Other available remedy 290 d) Frivolous 0 e) Investigation unnecessary 124 f) Investigation not beneficial to complainant 76 46 3.77 269 22.05 201 16.48 197 16.15 2 0.16 505 41.39 TOTAL 1,220 100.00 ABLE 7 evel of Impact esolved and Rectified (Jurisdictional) Complaints losed Between January and December 1981 Level of Impact Individual Only Practice Procedure Regulation Statute TOTAL ksolved emplaints notified bmplaints 491 55 56 97 49 19 1 1 4 8 601 180 TOTAL 546 153 68 2 12 781 Queen's Printer for British Columbia $ Victoria. 1982 113
- Library Home /
- Search Collections /
- Open Collections /
- Browse Collections /
- BC Sessional Papers /
- 1981 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE OMBUDSMAN TO THE LEGISLATIVE...
Open Collections
BC Sessional Papers
1981 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE OMBUDSMAN TO THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA British Columbia. Legislative Assembly 1982
jpg
Page Metadata
Item Metadata
Title | 1981 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE OMBUDSMAN TO THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA |
Creator |
British Columbia. Legislative Assembly |
Publisher | Victoria, BC : Government Printer |
Date Issued | 1982 |
Genre |
Legislative proceedings |
Type |
Text |
FileFormat | application/pdf |
Language | English |
Identifier | J110.L5 S7 1982_V01_26_001_113 |
Collection |
Sessional Papers of the Province of British Columbia |
Source | Original Format: Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Library. Sessional Papers of the Province of British Columbia |
Date Available | 2018-09-19 |
Provider | Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library |
Rights | Images provided for research and reference use only. For permission to publish, copy or otherwise distribute these images please contact the Legislative Library of British Columbia |
CatalogueRecord | http://resolve.library.ubc.ca/cgi-bin/catsearch?bid=1198198 |
DOI | 10.14288/1.0372103 |
AggregatedSourceRepository | CONTENTdm |
Download
- Media
- bcsessional-1.0372103.pdf
- Metadata
- JSON: bcsessional-1.0372103.json
- JSON-LD: bcsessional-1.0372103-ld.json
- RDF/XML (Pretty): bcsessional-1.0372103-rdf.xml
- RDF/JSON: bcsessional-1.0372103-rdf.json
- Turtle: bcsessional-1.0372103-turtle.txt
- N-Triples: bcsessional-1.0372103-rdf-ntriples.txt
- Original Record: bcsessional-1.0372103-source.json
- Full Text
- bcsessional-1.0372103-fulltext.txt
- Citation
- bcsessional-1.0372103.ris
Full Text
Cite
Citation Scheme:
Usage Statistics
Share
Embed
Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML
of your page to embed this item in your website.
<div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
<script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
src="{[{embed.src}]}"
data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
async >
</script>
</div>

https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/cdm.bcsessional.1-0372103/manifest