The Court allowed an application by the Province for judicial review of a decision of the Human Rights Commission, which had found that there was a prima facie case of discrimination in a matter concerning an autistic adult and the treatment and care provided to him. The Court found that there were numerous violations of procedural fairness, including the Commission’s failure to review evidence when it concluded that the adult was not adequately accommodated by the services he received, failing to address the appropriate question and not performing a comparative analysis, broadening the complaint without advising the applicant, and allowing a delay of 68 months which was excessive and amounted to an abuse of process.

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Discrimination – Disability – Duty to accommodate – Judicial review – Delay – Procedural requirements and fairness – Abuse of process – Standard of review – Correctness New Brunswick (Department of Social Development) v. New Brunswick Human Rights Commission, [2009] N.B.J. No. 45, ...

A taxi operator appealed the decision of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal which had found that he had discriminated against a disabled man by refusing to provide taxi service to him. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear and determine the complaint, and award costs against the Appellant. The court also rejected the Appellant’s allegation of bias on the part of the Tribunal member.

24. February 2009 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Jurisdiction – Right to award costs – Judicial review – Bias – Test – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Sahota v. Scott, [2008] S.J. No. 836, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, ...

The Court dismissed the appeal by the Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) from a decision of the Human Rights Tribunal finding that the complainant’s disciplinary suspension from school for profanity did not constitute discriminatory conduct. Although the complainant suffered from Williams Syndrome and was mentally retarded, there was no evidence to show that profanity was a characteristic common to persons with Williams Syndrome and suspensions were regularly used by the school as a form of discipline and 8 to 10 students would be suspended during any school year. As long as suspensions were used in a non-discriminatory manner, they were permissible and no prima facie case of discrimination had been made out.

28. October 2008 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Schools – Suspension of students – Human Rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Evidence Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Prince Albert Roman Catholic School Division No.6, [2008] S.J. No. 434, 2008 SKQB 227, ...

The Petition by the Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise (the “Ministry”) for an order quashing a decision of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) was allowed in part where the Court found that the Tribunal should not have heard a portion of a complaint regarding discrimination flowing from a clause in a collective agreement

23. September 2008 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Benefits – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Disability – Discrimination – Labour law – Collective agreements – Arbitration – Judicial review – Estoppel and res judicata – Mootness British Columbia (Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise) (c.o.b. Liquor Distribution Branch) v. Matuszewski, [2008] B.C.J. No. ...

A construction company appealed a chambers judge’s decision which had overturned the Human Rights Panel’s determination and finding that the Respondent had been the victim of discrimination because of the company’s drug testing policy. The chambers judge’s conclusion that the effect of the company’s policy was to exclude the Respondent from employment on the basis of perceived disability could not be sustained. There was a clear connection between the policy and its purpose, which was to reduce workplace accidents by prohibiting workplace impairment.

26. February 2008 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Drug and alcohol testing – Policies – Discrimination – Disability – Duty to accommodate – Employment law – Termination of employment – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Patent unreasonableness Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission) ...

The Court dismissed an application for a judicial review of a decision of the Director of Human Rights, directing that a complaint against the Appellant proceed to a hearing before an adjudication panel of the Northwest Territories Human Rights Commission. The Court found that there was no breach of procedural fairness, abuse of discretion, or errors of law.l

26. December 2007 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Correctness Diavik Diamond Mines Inc. v. Northwest Territories (Director of Human Rights), [2007] N.W.T.J. No. 89, Northwest Territories Supreme Court, ...

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, ...

A former employee of MacMillan Bloedel Limited who was injured in a car accident in 1979 (“Andrews”) was unsuccessful on his application for judicial review of a decision of the Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) refusing to accept his complaint for filing because it did not allege facts which, if proven, could be discrimination under the Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210 (the “Code”)

25. September 2007 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Labour law – Collective agreements – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Andrews v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), [2007] B.C.J. No. 1608, Supreme Court of British Columbia, July ...

The Human Rights Tribunal had found that the Petitioners had discriminated against the Respondent by refusing him taxi service based on his physical disability. The reviewing court upheld the finding of discrimination as reasonable, but set aside the monetary penalty, as the Petitioners had not been accorded a right to respond on the issue of remedy.

Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Judicial review – Natural justice – Damages – Remedies Foglia v. Edwards, [2007] B.C.J. No. 1301, British Columbia Supreme Court, June 14, 2007, McEwan J. The Respondent had filed a complaint alleging discrimination against the Petitioners on the basis ...

A forestry company (“International”) was unsuccessful on an application for judicial review from a decision of the BC Human Rights Tribunal (“Tribunal”) that a voluntary severance agreement (“Agreement”) ratified by the forestry workers union discriminated against non-active employees because active employees were offered severance pay under the Agreement, whereas non-active employees were not

24. April 2007 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability –  Employment law – Severance pay – Labour law – Collective agreements – Judicial review – Evidence – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Correctness International Forest Products Ltd. v. Sandhu, [2007] B.C.J. No. 289, British Columbia Supreme Court, February ...