Employers only have to try so hard: terminating employment after an employee fails to engage in the accommodation process and fails to respond to related correspondence is not retaliation

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Human Rights Commission – investigations – Disability – Discrimination – Employment law – Wrongful dismissal – Judicial review – Application – Appeals – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness Wojtasiewicz v. Alberta (Human Rights Commission), [2020] A.J. No. 81, 2020 ABCA 23, Alberta Court of ...

The applicable standard of review for human rights complaints and the denial of the opportunity to award costs as a reviewable error

17. December 2019 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Human Rights Tribunal – Disability – Statutory interpretation – Legislation – Judicial review – Appeals – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness – Costs Pollock v. Manitoba (Human Rights Commission), [2019] M.J. No. 286, 2019 MBCA 110, Manitoba Court of Appeal, October 28, 2019, B.M. Hamilton, J.A. Pfuetzner and L.T. ...

Federal Court agrees with veteran pension applicant that it was unreasonable for the pension appeal panel to consider his supporting physician’s opinion linking his injury to his armed forces services to be speculative and thus not credible. Panel’s decision was set aside and returned to a differently constituted panel for redetermination.

19. March 2019 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Veterans Review and Appeal Board – Pension Appeals Board – Disability – Eligibility – Judicial review – Appeals – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness Crummey v. Canada (Attorney General), [2019] F.C.J. No. 54, 2019 FC 73, Federal Court (Halifax, Nova Scotia), January 18, 2019, R.F. Southcott J. The ...

The petitioner hospital was unsuccessful on judicial review in setting aside the decision of the Human Rights Tribunal to not summarily dismiss a human rights complaint as having no reasonable prospect of success under section 27(1) of the Human Rights Code. The complaint was for alleged discrimination by the hospital on the grounds of mental and physical disability in relation to the provision of services. The court found that the complaint had some prospect of success and that the Tribunal’s decision was not patently unreasonable. The court rejected the argument that the Tribunal was not in a position to second-guess the exercise of professional medical judgment by the hospital staff in the provision of services, absent discrimination.

19. February 2019 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Human Rights Tribunal – Discrimination – Disability – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Practice and procedure – Summary proceedings Hospital v. J.R. (Litigation guardian of), [2018] B.C.J. No. 3731, 2018 BCSC 2079, British Columbia Supreme Court, November 26, 2018, L.W. Bernard J. ...

The applicant, a prospective RCMP candidate, was successful on judicial review in setting aside a Human Rights Commission’s decision dismissing his complaint that the RCMP discriminated against him based on his medical condition. The court found the Commission failed to conduct a neutral investigation and breached its duty of fairness, and also failed to apply the correct legal test when assessing the complaint.

19. February 2019 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Human Rights Commission – Discrimination – Disability – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Test – Standard of review – Correctness – Professions – Police Boychyn v. Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police), [2018] F.C.J. No. 1203, 2018 FC 1185, Ontario Federal Court, November 27, 2018, S.S. Ahmed ...

Does the Human Rights Commission have to provide reasons when dismissing a complaint? When is it appropriate on judicial review for the court to permit evidence that was not before the original decision-maker? These were some of the central questions that were before the Nova Scotia Supreme Court after the applicant filed a complaint against her employer saying that she was constructively dismissed due to a failure to accommodate her disability.

16. November 2018 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Human Rights Commission – Judicial review – Evidence – Failure to provide reasons – Standard of review – Reasonableness – Human rights complaints – Disability Kelly v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), [2018] N.S.J. No. 336, 2018 NSSC 173, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, September 11, 2018, J.M. Arnold J. ...

Federal Court refers complaint regarding discrimination related to medicinal marijuana back to the CHRC for re-determination

19. September 2017 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Human Rights Commission – Judicial review – Human rights complaints – Disability – Procedural fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness McIlvenna v. Bank of Nova Scotia, [2017] F.C.J. No. 728, 2017 FC 699, Federal Court, July 19, 2017, K.M. Boswell J. In 2012, the Commission dismissed the complaint ...

Canadian Human Rights Commission’s finding that bank employee had been accommodated is unreasonable

The Applicant, Ms. Morand, applied for judicial review of the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s decision dismissing her complaint.  The complaint alleged the Respondent (the Bank of Nova Scotia) discriminated against Ms. Morand on the basis of a disability.  The Court held the Commission’s decision was unreasonable and allowed the application for review. Administrative law – ...

The Appellant was unsuccessful in appealing a Chambers Judge’s decision that quashed his complaint to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission

23. October 2015 0
The Appellant veterinary student (Mr. Hebron) was unsuccessful in appealing a Chambers Judge’s decision.  On application by the Respondent University of Saskatchewan and the Associate Dean (Dr. Grahn), the Chambers Judge had quashed Mr. Hebron’s complaint to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission. Administrative law – Correctness – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Disability – Discrimination ...

Following an application made by a passenger who had an allergic reaction to a dog on an airplane, the Canadian Transportation Agency ordered Air Canada to develop and implement specific policies and procedures necessary to accommodate persons with dog allergies who are traveling on its airplanes. Air Canada appealed the Agency’s decision on the basis that it was denied procedural fairness. The court found that Air Canada was denied procedural fairness in that the Agency refused to consider its submissions on a number of crucial issues. The matter was returned to the Agency for reconsideration.

24. February 2015 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Canadian Transportation Agency – Human rights complaints – Disability – Duty to accommodate – Policies – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence Air Canada v. Greenglass, [2014] F.C.J. No. 1286, 2014 FCA 288, Federal Court of Appeal, December 9, 2014, Nadon, Gauthier and Scott ...