A man (“Leonard”) employed to work on the Hibernia Oil Platform, appealed from a decision of the Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) dismissing his complaint that his employer (Noble”) discriminated against him on the basis of a perceived drug addiction

24. May 2011 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Drug and alcohol testing – Employer’s policies – Judicial review – Evidence – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Leonard v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Human Rights Commission), [2011] N.J. No. 113, 2011 NLTD(G) ...

An investigation conducted by the Canadian Human Rights Commission did not meet the standard of thoroughness and was remitted back to the Commission for reconsideration

26. October 2010 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Human Rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Employment law – Appointment – Judicial review – Investigations – Procedural requirements and fairness – Bias Hughes v. Canada (Attorney General), [2010] F.C.J. No. 1036, 2010 FC 837, Federal Court, August 23, 2010, Mactavish J. ...

The applicant suffers from a learning disability and alleged that Mount Saint Vincent University failed to provide her with adequate accommodations during an examination. The Human Rights Commission declined to refer the case to the Board of Inquiry and terminated the complaint. The application for judicial review was dismissed.

24. August 2010 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Human rights complaints – Disability – Duty to accommodate – Students with special educational needs – Universities – Students – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Failure to provide reasons Green v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), [2010] N.S.J. No. 350, ...

The appeal by workers from a decision quashing a Human Rights Tribunal’s decision to proceed with their human rights complaint was allowed where the Court held that the Tribunal’s decision to proceed was discretionary and was not patently unreasonable

27. April 2010 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Workers Compensation Boards – Discretion of tribunal – Workers compensation – Benefits – Policies – Validity and application of policies – Human rights complaints – Disability – Discrimination – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Standard of review ...

The Court granted an application for judicial review of a decision of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, which had declined, on reconsideration, not to re-open an appeal decision in respect of the Applicant’s application for a disability pension. The Court found that there were no facts to support the Board’s finding that the Applicant’s disability was connected to an old hockey injury, and that a finding that there was no “new evidence” was unreasonable.

23. March 2010 0
Administrative Law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Veterans Review and Appeal Board – Disability – Pensions – Eligibility – Judicial review – Evidence – Fresh evidence – admissibility – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Armstrong v. Canada (Attorney General), [2010] F.C.J. No. 104, 2010 FC 91, Federal Court, January 27, 2010, Harrington J. ...

The Appellant, Campbell, initiated an unsuccessful human rights complaint on the basis that her employer, the Canada Revenue Agency (“the CRA”), had discriminated against her on the basis of her disability

23. February 2010 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Harassment – Investigations – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness Campbell v. Canada (Attorney General), [2009] F.C.J. No. 1603, 2009 FC 1252, Federal Court, December 8, 2009, Harrington J. Campbell suffered from back pain ...

The Applicant Davidson successfully applied for judicial review of the Respondent Commission’s decision to dismiss her human rights complaint at a preliminary stage. The matter was referred back to the Commission for reconsideration taking into account the reasons for judgment.

27. October 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Duty to accommodate – Investigations – Judicial review – Evidence – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Davidson v. Canada Post Corp., [2009] F.C.J. No. 987, Federal Court, July 9, 2009, ...

The Application by a Claimant (“Rowel”) for judicial review of a decision of the Manitoba Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) was dismissed where the Court found that the investigation into Rowel’s complaint was conducted neutrally and thoroughly

28. July 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Human rights complaints – Disability – Duty to accommodate – Investigations – Role of Investigator – Procedural fairness – Judicial review – Bias – Failure to provide reasons Rowel v. Union Centre Inc., [2009] M.J. No. 215, Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, May ...

The Petitioner (Gonzalez) applied for judicial review of a decision of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, which found that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the Petitioner’s complaint. The application for judicial review was dismissed.

23. June 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Duty to accommodate – Judges – Judicial immunity – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Standard of review – Correctness Gonzalez v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [2009] B.C.J. No. 955, British Columbia Supreme Court, ...

The appeal by Carter from the dismissal by the Supreme Court of her petition for judicial review of the decision of a British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) which had dismissed her complaint under Section 27(1)(d)(ii) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996 c.210 (the “Code”) was dismissed where the Court agreed that the Tribunal was within its jurisdiction to dismiss the claim in circumstances where proceeding would have resulted in the same or nearly the same award as a rejected and reasonable settlement offer

26. May 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Jurisdiction – Public interest – Employment law – Termination of employment – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Natural justice Carter v. Travelex Canada Ltd., [2009] B.C.J. ...