A former Coast Guard employee (“Brooks”) brought a complaint of racial discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act (the “Act”) against the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (the “DFO”). The Human Rights Tribunal determined that DFO had discriminated against Brooks based on his race. The Tribunal then declined to consider the remedies of reinstatement and back pay which Brooks sought. The Attorney General of Canada brought an application for judicial review to set aside the decision that the DFO had discriminated against Brooks and Brooks applied for judicial review of the decision to decline to consider the remedies.

26. December 2006 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Race – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Employment – Appointment – Remedies – Hearings – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Brooks v. Canada (Department of Fisheries and Oceans), [2006] F.C.J. No. 1569, Federal Court, ...

The Court set aside an Order in Council removing the Applicant from his position as Chairman of the Board of Directors of VIA Rail. The Governor General in Council had breached the duty to act fairly by not informing the Applicant of the reason or reasons for dissatisfaction with him and not giving him the opportunity to be heard.

24. January 2006 0
Administrative law – Employment law – Appointment – Termination of employment – Legislation – Orders-in-council – Validity – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness Pelletier v. Canada (Attorney General), [2005] F.C.J. No. 1891, Federal Court Montréal, Quebec, November 18, 2005, Noël J. In 2001, the Applicant had been appointed to hold office at pleasure for a ...

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of an employer (“BC Hydro”) and reinstated the decision of the Human Rights Commission (“HRC”) dismissing, at a preliminary stage, the complaint of an employee (“Lee”). The court held that the reviewing judge erred in failing to give due deference to the HRC by substituting her view of the evidence for the view of the HRC.

23. November 2004 0
Administrative law – Employment law – Appointment – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Race – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Evidenciary issues – Judicial review – Evidence Lee v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [2004] B.C.J. No. 1851, British Columbia Court of Appeal, September 10, 2004, Finch C.J.B.C., Prowse and Donald JJ.A. Lee is ...

The Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (the “HLDAA”)dictates that disputes over collective agreements in Ontario hospitals and nursing homes have to be resolved by compulsory arbitration. The Minister of Labour appointed retired judges to chair arbitration boards. The Respondents, Canadian Union of Public Employees and Service Employees International Union, objected to the appointments on the basis that the retired judges lacked expertise, experience, tenure, and independence from government. The Appellant Minister of Labour in exercising his power of appointment under the HLDAA is required to be satisfied that the prospective chairpersons are not only independent and impartial but possess appropriate labour relations expertise and are recognised in the labour relations community as generally acceptable to both management and labour. The appropriate standard of review is patent unreasonableness. The majority found that the appointments were patently unreasonable because the Minister expressly excluded relevant factors that went to the heart of the legislative scheme.

22. July 2003 0
Administrative law – Labour law – Arbitrators – Appointment – Bias – Ministerial powers – Judicial review – Statutory powers – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Ontario (Minister of Labour), [2003] S.C.J. No. 28, Supreme Court of Canada, May 16, 2003, McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier, Iaccobucci, Major, Bastarache, ...