Human Rights Tribunal can refuse to accept complaints for filing if facts do not allege, beyond the realm of conjecture, a contravention of the Code

20. April 2021 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Human Rights Tribunal – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Human rights complaints – Private clubs – Age – Gender – Race – Harassment Gichuru v. Vancouver Swing Society, [2021] B.C.J. No. 440, 2021 BCCA 103, British Columbia Court ...

Human rights complaint investigation was sent back to Tribunal for lack of thoroughness

27. September 2016 0
An application for judicial review of the Human Rights Commission’s decision to direct a complaint for further inquiry by the Tribunal following an investigation was granted because the investigation was not sufficiently thorough.  The matter was returned to the investigator with directions. Administrative law – Age – Correctness – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Discrimination ...

Suppression firefighters employed by the city applied for judicial review of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario’s summary dismissal of their complaint of discrimination based on the city’s requirements that suppression firefighters retire at age 60. The tribunal, relying on an earlier decision, found that mandatory retirement at age 60 for suppression firefighters was a bona fide occupational requirement. The tribunal concluded that the mandatory retirement standard was adopted in good faith to protect health and safety. The court dismissed the application for judicial review, noting that the exception the employer might be required to offer in individual accommodation was a narrow one. The applicants brought forward no medical evidence nor did it suggest an alternative testing regime capable of eliciting medical evidence. Thus the procedural duty to accommodate the firefighters was not triggered.

24. March 2015 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Age – Mandatory retirement – Occupational requirement – Duty to accommodate – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Corrigan v. Mississauga (City), [2015] O.J. No. 435, 2015 ONSC 236, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, ...

A bus driver who was required to retire at age 65 made a human rights complaint alleging discrimination. A Nova Scotia Board of Inquiry under the Human Rights Act found discrimination, but the School Board successfully appealed from this determination.

24. March 2015 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Human Rights complaints – Discrimination – Age – Mandatory retirement – Labour law – Collective agreements – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Tri-County Regional School Board v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Board of Inquiry), [2015] ...

A partner in a limited liability partnership is not an employee of the partnership for the purpose of claiming protection of human rights legislation from age discrimination. The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and the Supreme Court, on judicial review, decided that for the purposes of human rights legislation, a partnership may be treated as a separate legal entity from its partners and as the employer of the partner, resulting the Tribunal having jurisdiction to hear a complaint by a partner of discrimination in his employment. On appeal by the partnership, the Court of Appeal found that the principles of interpretation of the Human Rights Code, RSBC 1996, c.210, which mandated a broad, liberal approach consistent with its remedial purposes, do not extend to overriding the fundamental and well-established principle of law that a partnership, is not, in law, a separate entity but a collective of its partners. As such, it cannot in law be an employer of a partner. The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint and the appeal was allowed.

25. September 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Age – Statutory interpretation – Employment law – Employee – definition – Partnerships – Mandatory retirement – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Compliance with legislation Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), [2012] B.C.J. ...

The Court quashed two decisions made by members of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal ordering a Tribunal inquiry into the respondents’ age discrimination complaints. The complaints had initially been refused an inquiry by the Human Rights Commissioner and the Court was of the view that had that decision been overturned, it would have undermined the legislative intention at the time the age discrimination was alleged as well as when the legislation was amended.

26. April 2011 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Age – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness – Labour law – Collective agreements – Statutory interpretation – Retrospective and retroactive operation University of Regina v. Kly, [2011] S.J. No. 141, ...

The applicant was successful in seeking a judicial review order on the basis that the Canadian Human Rights Commission (“Commission”) did not conduct a sufficient/neutral investigation as it ignored crucial evidence and did not address several critical aspects of the applicant’s claim

23. November 2010 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Investigations – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Age – Employment law – Appointment – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Bias – Evidence Hughes v. Canada (Attorney General), [2010] F.C.J. No. 1193, 2010 FC 963, Federal Court, September 27, 2010, ...

The City of Calgary was successful in having the Court set aside the decision of the Chief Commissioner of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission where the Court found that the Chief Commissioner’s decision was unreasonable as it compared the situation of the disabled complainant (“Halfyard”) with other groups of employees not contemplated by the relevant section of the Collective Agreement

25. September 2007 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Human Rights – Discrimination – Disability – Age – Labour law – Collective agreements – Workers compensation – Benefits – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Calgary (City) v. Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission), [2007] A.J. No. 852, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, ...

The Quebec Human Rights Tribunal was entitled to assume jurisdiction over a complaint brought by a minority group composed primarily of younger and less experienced teachers who alleged that their union’s modification of a collective agreement with the Province of Quebec discriminated against them. The Tribunal was entitled to hear the complaint despite a provision in the Quebec Labour Code requiring that every grievance be submitted to arbitration.

27. July 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Jurisdiction to hear a complaint – Labour law – Collective agreements – Mandatory arbitration – Jurisdiction of labour arbitrator to hear human rights complaint – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Age – Charter of Rights – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Compliance with legislation – ...

A Human Rights complainant (“Gismondi”) was unsuccessful in his appeal of a decision by the Human Rights Commission not to deal with his complaint because it was not brought in a timely manner. The court held that procedural fairness had been afforded to Gismondi in the review of the Commission’s decision as he was given ample notice of the review and an opportunity to be heard. The court further held that the Commission’s reasons, although extremely brief, were sufficient, given the “screening” or primarily administrative nature of the decision at issue.

22. April 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Age – Limitations – Judicial review application – Breach of procedural fairness – Natural justice – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Failure to provide adequate reasons Gismondi v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [2003] O.J. No. 419, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, February 14, 2003, Blair, E.M. ...