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 ...

An employee (“Ramsay”) of the City of Charlottetown (the “City”) brought an application for judicial review of a decision of the PEI Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) dismissing his complaint that he had been discriminated against based on his political beliefs and disability. The application was dismissed.

23. December 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Duty to accommodate – Investigations – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Witnesses – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Ramsay v. Prince Edward Island (Human Rights Commission), [2014] P.E.I.J. No. 41, 2014 ...

Petition for judicial review from decision of Human Rights Tribunal dismissing complaint because it was not filed in time.

24. December 2013 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human Rights – Discrimination – Disability – Motor vehicles – Suspension of driver’s licence – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Limitation of actions – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Lewis v. British Columbia (Ministry of Public Safety), [2013] B.C.J. No. ...

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal made by parents of a child with a disability, of a Chambers Judge’s decision quashing an order of the Human Rights Tribunal to refer a human rights complaint to an inquiry. The appeal concerned a human rights complaint brought by the parents of a 10 year old boy who suffered a disability. The complaint arose out of a newly implemented locked door policy at the school that made it more difficult for the boy to enter and leave the school building.

24. September 2013 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Duty to accommodate – Schools – Parental rights – Judicial review – Evidence Holy Trinity Roman Catholic School Division (c.o.b. Ecole St. Margaret School) v. Prisciak, [2013] S.J. No. 501, 2013 SKCA 87, Saskatchewan Court ...

Court of Appeal overturned the decision of a chambers judge and upheld a decision of the BC Human Rights Tribunal awarding a mentally disabled appellant damages for discrimination in tenancy. The appellant had purchased a motor home and the respondent had refused to rent the pad on which the home was located and refused to consent to the vendors’ lease to the appellant.

27. August 2013 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Landlord and tenant – Leases – Human rights complaints – Disability – Discrimination – Judicial review – Privileged communications – Disclosure – Evidence – admissibility – Judicial notice Silver Campsites Ltd. v. James, [2013] B.C.J. No. 1302, 2013 BCCA 292, British Columbia Court ...

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court, confirmed that employees have an evidentiary onus to prove a prima facie case of discrimination before the burden shifts to the employer to provide a credible and rational explanation that its actions were not discriminatory

27. August 2013 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Harassment – Disability – Sexual orientation – Hearings – Judicial review – Evidence Walton Enterprises v. Lombardi, [2013] O.J. No. 3306, 2013 ONSC 4218, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, July 11, 2013, A.M. Molloy, K.E. Swinton and ...

The respondent registrant appealed a College decision to the Health Professions Appeal Review Board (“HPARB”) and made a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission about the College’s decision. The HPARB upheld the College’s decision and the College then applied to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal to have her complaint dismissed. The Tribunal refused to dismiss it and the College applied for judicial review and obtained an order quashing the Tribunal’s decision.

27. December 2011 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Nurses – Human Rights Tribunal – Nurses – Disciplinary proceedings – Public interest – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Duty to accommodate – Judicial review – Appeals – Investigations – Standard of review – Correctness – Compliance with legislation – Privative clauses ...

The applicant, the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”), applied for judicial review of a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) in which it dismissed a complaint filed by the complainant, William G.M. Shmuir, against the respondent, Carnival Cruise Lines (“Carnival”) for violating the Canadian Human Rights Act

23. August 2011 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Canadian Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Disability – Discrimination – Judicial review – Evidence – Legislative compliance Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Shmuir, [2011] F.C.J. No. 1040, 2011 FC 839, Federal Court, July 8, 2011, Simpson J. The visually-impaired complainant had attended a ...

The British Columbia Supreme Court dismisses an application for judicial review, holding that the Worker’s Compensation Appeal Tribunal did not fetter its discretion by relying on a policy to interpret the applicable legislation and that the Tribunal’s decision was not patently unreasonable

28. June 2011 0
Administrative law – Workers Compensation – Disability – Unreasonableness Phillips v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal), [2011] B.C.J. No. 835, 2011 BCSC 576, British Columbia Supreme Court, May 3, 2011, P. Rogers J. The petitioner, Glynis Phillips, seeks an order setting aside a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal (“WCAT”). The sole issue ...

The Alberta Court of Appeal holds that the Dispute Resolution and Decision Review Body of the Workers’ Compensation Board has the jurisdiction to reconsider its own decisions

28. June 2011 0
Administrative law – Workers Compensation Boards – Disability – Jurisdiction – Appeals Watson v. Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Board), [2011] A.J. No. 450, 2011 ABCA 127, Alberta Court of Appeal, May 3, 2011, J.E.L. Cote, J.D.B. McDonald JJ.A. and G.A. Verville J. In March 1999, the respondent, Patricia Watson, filed a claim with the Workers’ Compensation ...