A university professor complained that he had been discriminated against under the Universities Academic Pension Plan on the basis of gender as the pension plan provided less of a monthly pension benefit to a married male employee and his spouse than a married female employee and her spouse where the employees and their spouses are of the same age and where the employees have made the same contributions to the Plan over the same length of time. The Chief Commissioner of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (the “Commissioner”) dismissed the complaint as being “without merit”. The standard of review with respect to the Commissioner’s decision on legal issues or matters of mixed fact and law is that of correctness while the standard for factual findings is reasonableness simpliciter. The Commissioner’s conclusion that the complaint was “without merit” was unreasonable. The Commissioner’s function is that of a gatekeeper. His role is to determine if there is sufficient evidence to justify passing a complaint on to a human rights panel. In this case, there was sufficient basis in the evidence that the Commissioner ought to have advanced this matter to the next stage.

26. November 2002 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Gender – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Mis v. Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission), [2002] A.J. No. 1320, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, October 29, 2002, Lee J. The applicant university professor sought to set aside a decision of the ...

A journalist made a request under the Act Respecting Access to Documents Held by Public Bodies and the Protection of Personal Information, R.S.Q., c. A-2.1 (the “Act”) for access to a document concerning the expenses of Members of the National Assembly which described the Member’s total payroll and expenses for employing staff and paying for professional services. The Commission d’accès à l’information (the “Commissioner”) refused disclosure of the information under ss. 34 and 57 of the Act; finding that the requested document had been prepared “for” a Member and could not be disclosed under s. 34 without the Member’s consent and that the Member could not be considered to constitute a public body within the meaning of s. 57.

26. November 2002 0
Administrative law – Access to information – Production of records – Public body – Definition – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Macdonell v. Quebec (Commission d’accès à l’information), [2002] S.C.J. No. 71, Supreme Court of Canada, November 1, 2002, McLachlin C.J., L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ. A journalist ...

A standard of correctness applies to an appeal from a chambers judge’s decision on a standard of review to be applied to a tribunal’s decision. The appellate court is in the same position as the reviewing judge. In this case, the chambers judge erred in concluding that a standard of reasonableness simpliciter applied to the tribunal and the appeal was allowed.

22. October 2002 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Standard of review of appellate court – Correctness test – Not patently unreasonable Alberta (Minister of Municipal Affairs) v. Telus Communications Inc., [2002] A.J. No. 1068, Alberta Court of Appeal, September 4, 2002, Berger, O’Leary and Hunt JJ.A. The Municipal Government Board (“MGB”) determined that feature software used in ...

Once a fishing guide employee has shown he has been denied employment because of his mental disability, “prima facie discrimination” is established. The onus then shifts to the employer to demonstrate that the “standard” imposed by it (reasonable safely on the water) was a bona fide occupational requirement. In doing so, the employer’s direct experience with the employee is relevant evidence. Matter remitted to be determined on proper consideration of evidence.

22. October 2002 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Disability – Evidence – Duty to accommodate – Occupational requirement Oak Bay Marina Ltd. (c.o.b. Painter’s Lodge) v. British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), [2002] B.C.J. No. 2029, British Columbia Court of Appeal, September 10, 2002, Newbury, Hall and Saunders JJ.A. A fishing guide with a bipolar affective disorder ...

Intent is not a necessary precondition to a finding that an act is discriminatory. In the evaluation of a human rights complaint, the Commission must take into account the reality that overt discrimination is rare today and is generally subtle in nature. The appropriate standard of review of the Commission’s decision of whether or not to dismiss a complaint is reasonableness simpliciter. On the facts, the court held that the Commission’s decision was unreasonable and directed an investigation by a new investigator.

27. August 2002 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Boards and tribunals – Judicial review application – Standard of review – Reasonableness Simpliciter – Investigative bodies – Fairness Chopra v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] F.C.J. No. 1082, Federal Court of Canada – Trial Division, July 12, 2002, Beaudry J. A scientist employed by Health Canada sought judicial review of the ...

The court does not have the jurisdiction to hear a professor’s claims against the University based on the torts of non-sexual common law harassment, intimidation, and unlawful interference with economic interests. In the result, the action was dismissed. The essential nature of the dispute related to the working conditions of employees and the failure of the University to take adequate measures to ensure a safe and harassment free working environment. The appropriate forum for the resolution of the dispute was the grievance and arbitration procedure set out in the collective bargaining agreement.

27. August 2002 0
Administrative law – Labour law – Arbitration – Collective agreements – Working conditions – Jurisdiction of court – Universities – Jurisdiction Hemmings v. University of Saskatchewan, [2002] S.J. No. 457, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, July 30, 2002, Vancise, Sherstobitoff and Jackson JJ.A. A tenured professor commenced an action against the University for intimidation, intentional infliction of harm, ...

Workers Compensation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 492 provisions granting spousal benefits for life to widowed parents 40 years of age or older when their children cease dependency but denying pension benefits to widowed parents under 40 years of age when their children cease dependency are discriminatory on the basis of age and therefore contrary to section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

27. August 2002 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Benefits – Charter of Rights – Discrimination – Equality rights Burnett v. British Columbia (Worker’s Compensation Board), [2002] B.C.J. No. 1738, British Columbia Supreme Court, July 25, 2002, Holmes J. The Petitioner’s spouse was killed in a work-related accident when she was 32 years old with one dependent child aged ...

The Appellant’s, a retired teacher, allegations of defamation, negligence, malice and arbitrary treatment against other employees of the school district were dismissed on the grounds that the Court did not have jurisdiction to deal with them. The Court does not have jurisdiction to hear disputes whose “essential character” arises from the interpretation, application, administration, or violation of a collective agreement”. In such cases, the dispute must be dealt with by the dispute resolution process provided in the collective agreement and labour relations statutes and not by litigation in the Courts.

26. March 2002 0
Administrative law – Labour law – Collective agreements – Jurisdiction of court – Defamation – Qualified privilege Haight-Smith v. Neden, [2002] B.C.J. No. 375, British Columbia Court of Appeal, February 27, 2002, Esson, Ryan and Levine JJ.A. If the “essential character” of the dispute arises from the interpretation, application, administration or violation of the collective ...

An employer’s application for stay of proceedings of a human rights complaint was dismissed. Delay of 83 months since the first allegation and 56 months since the complaint was made was not sufficiently egregious to meet the high threshold necessary to support a remedy of a stay of proceedings

26. March 2002 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Judicial review – Boards and tribunals – Bias – Breach of procedural fairness – Delay Crown Packaging Ltd. v. Ghinis, [2002] B.C.J. No. 489, British Columbia Court of Appeal, March 7, 2002, Prowse, Hall and Mackenzie JJ.A. The events alleged as the grounds of the complaint arose in November ...