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. ...

The Applicant applied for judicial review of a decision of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The Complainant had filed a complaint against the Toronto Police Services Board and its chief with the Commission, alleging discrimination in the provision of services because of her race and colour. The Commission decided not to deal with the complaint because the crux of the complaint related to matters that occurred when criminal charges were laid against the Complainant, some fourteen months before she filed the complaint, and the Commission was not satisfied that the delay in filing the complaint was incurred in good faith. The Court dismissed her application for judicial review, finding that the Commission’s decision was reasonable, and that even if there had been any merit to the application for judicial review, it would have been denied because of the inordinate delay in bringing the application (18 months) and because there would have been no useful purpose served by granting the relief sought.

23. September 2008 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Race – Judicial review – Delay – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Jeremiah v Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [2008] O.J. No. 3013, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, July 11, 2008, L.K. Ferrier, R.W.M. Pitt ...

Decisions of human rights tribunals involving pure questions of law should be reviewed on a standard of correctness. Where questions of law can be identified and separated from the questions of mixed law and fact, the Court should separate the issues and review questions of law on a standard of correctness, not a standard of reasonableness.

26. August 2008 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Human Rights complaints – Discrimination – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Correctness Ayangma v. Prince Edward Island Eastern School Board, [2008] P.E.I.J. No. 31, 2008 PESCAD 10, Prince Edward Island Supreme Court -Appeal Division, June 26, 2008, Mc.Quaid ...

The Court granted the defendant university association’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff university professor’s action against it on the ground that the matter fell into the exclusive jurisdiction of the Manitoba Labour Board. The plaintiff’s action alleged that the UWFA failed to fairly represent him when it agreed to mandatory retirement provisions in the relevant collective agreement. The Labour Relations Act provides a procedure for adjudicating the plaintiff’s complaint. In addition, the dispute involved the negotiation of the collective agreement, which falls within the ambit of the legislation regarding UWFA’s duty of fair representation. Therefore, the exclusive jurisdiction to hear this matter rested with the Board and not with the Court.

22. July 2008 0
Administrative law – Universities – Discrimination – Labour law – Collective agreements – Mandatory retirement Tomchuk v. University of Winnipeg Faculty Assn., [2008] M.J. No. 229. Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, June 5, 2008, H.C. Beard J. The applicant was the defendant University of Winnipeg Faculty Association (the “UWFA”) in an action brought against it ...

The Court dismissed an appeal by a regional municipality, which took the position that a discrimination complaint fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator appointed pursuant to the collective agreement, and that the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission could thus not investigate the complaint. The Court upheld the decision of the chambers judge who had found that the Commission had concurrent jurisdiction.

27. May 2008 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Arbitration Board – Human Rights Commission – Jurisdiction – Municipalities – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Race – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Labour law – Collective agreements – Arbitration – Jurisdiction of labour arbitrator to hear human rights complaints Halifax Regional Municipality v. ...

An application for judicial review of two decisions of the Manitoba Board of Adjudictation which upheld complaints filed by twin sisters that they had suffered discrimination on the basis of gender by being denied an opportunity to try out for the male hockey team at their school. The Court dismissed the application and upheld the decision of the Manitoba Board of Adjudication.

25. March 2008 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Board of Adjudication – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Test – Gender – Judicial review -Jurisdiction of tribunal – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Manitoba High Schools Athletic Association Inc. v. Pasternak, [2008] M.J. No. 10, Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, January 21, ...

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 Federal Court allowed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”), finding that the Commission’s investigation of the applicant’s complaint was less than thorough. There was no evidence that the Commission took into account the issue of racial profiling in its investigation of the Applicant’s complaint that, as a bank customer, he was discriminated against by the Respondent bank because of race and colour.

22. January 2008 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Race – Investigations – Judicial review – Evidence – Procedural requirements and fairness – Compliance with legislation Powell v. TD Canada Trust, [2007] F.C.J. No. 1579, Federal Court, November 23, 2007, Gibson, J. The Applicant is a ...