The Province may be ordered to pay compensation under the Human rights legislation to a person who has been found to have been discriminated against by a government employee exercising statutory authority. The Court held that s.69 of the Administrative Tribunals Act (the “Act”) applied to all judicial review proceedings decisions of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal heard by the Court after October 15, 2004.

27. March 2007 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Motor vehicles – Suspension of driver’s licence – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Compliance with legislation – Continuing contravention – Damages – Crown immunity – Standard of review – Correctness British Columbia v. Bolster, [2007] B.C.J. No. 192, ...

The Petitioner applied under the Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.241 for judicial review of a screening decision by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (“BCHRT”). The British Columbia Supreme Court (“BCSC”) applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review under sections 59(3) and 59(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, R.S.B.C. 2004, c. 45 (“ATA”). The BCSC held that there was no basis for concluding that the Chair of the BCHRT exercised her discretion arbitrarily or in bad faith, for an improper purpose, based on irrelevant factors, or that she failed to take statutory requirements into account. The petition was dismissed.

27. February 2007 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Judicial review – Mootness – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness L.M.A. v. British Columbia (Ministry of Child and Family Services), [2006] B.C.J. No. 3274, British Columbia Supreme Court, December 20, 2006, Joyce J. The Petitioner filed two ...

The Applicant had filed a complaint with the Respondent Human Rights Commission against the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, in respect of the Ministry’s failure to include a requirement in the Building Code that theatres be equipped with rear window caption boards for the benefit of the hearing impaired. The Commission decided not to refer the complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal. The Court dismissed this application for judicial review of the Commission’s decision, finding that it was reasonable.

27. February 2007 0
Administrative law – Human Rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Regulatory powers of tribunals – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Malkowski v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [2006] O.J. No. 5140, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, December 11, 2006, G.D. Lane, J.D. Ground and ...

The Court dismissed an appeal from a judicial review decision which had held that the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal had erred when it found that it had jurisdiction to hear the complaint of some female members of a private golf club who were excluded from the men’s lounge. The Court found that the services provided in the men’s lounge were not customarily available to the public and therefore, s.8 of the Human Rights Code did not apply and the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

27. February 2007 0
Administrative law – Human Rights Complaints – Discrimination – Gender – Sexual orientation – Customarily available to the public – Compliance with legislation – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Jurisdiction to hear a complaint – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Marine Drive Golf Club v. Buntain, [2007] B.C.J. No. 37, British ...

An application for judicial review of a decision by the Human Rights Commission declining to grant summary dismissal of a complaint regarding publications about a First Nations home for adolescent males alleged to be discriminatory on the basis of race and other factors was dismissed

23. January 2007 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Race – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Aboriginal issues – Jurisdiction – Parties – Standing – Judicial review – Appeals – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Carson v. Knucwentwecw Society, [2006] B.C.J. No 3102, British Columbia Supreme Court, December 1, 2006, Ehrcke J. A ...

A former Coast Guard employee (“Brooks”) brought a complaint of racial discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act (the “Act”) against the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (the “DFO”). The Human Rights Tribunal determined that DFO had discriminated against Brooks based on his race. The Tribunal then declined to consider the remedies of reinstatement and back pay which Brooks sought. The Attorney General of Canada brought an application for judicial review to set aside the decision that the DFO had discriminated against Brooks and Brooks applied for judicial review of the decision to decline to consider the remedies.

26. December 2006 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Race – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Employment – Appointment – Remedies – Hearings – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Brooks v. Canada (Department of Fisheries and Oceans), [2006] F.C.J. No. 1569, Federal Court, ...

Dowling was successful in his application for judicial review of the decision of a Human Rights Panel of the Prince Edward Island Human Rights Commission where the Court held that the Commissioner erred in proceeding to determine the issue of damages without hearing submissions from the parties

28. November 2006 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Evidence Dowling v. Prince Edward Island, [2006] P.E.I.J. No. 52, Prince Edward Island Supreme Court – Trial Division, September 25, 2006, J.R. Matheson C.J.T.D. Dowling alleged that the ...

The Petitioner sought an order quashing a decision of the Respondent, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (“BCHRT”), dismissing her human rights complaint against the Respondent, the University of Victoria (the “University”). The Court held that the appropriate standard of review is patent unreasonableness. The Court concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish a basis for quashing the BCHRT decision, and dismissed the application.

28. November 2006 0
Administrative law – Universities – Students – Duty to accommodate – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Judicial review – Limitations – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Callaghan v. University of Victoria, [2006] B.C.J. No. 2668, British Columbia Supreme Court, October 11, ...

A man (“Crockford”) charged with assault of his female domestic partner appealed from the decision of a chambers judge finding that the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider his complaint of discrimination against Crown counsel because Crown counsel provided no “service customarily available to the public” as required under s. 8 of the Human Rights Code.

24. October 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Gender – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Public interest British Columbia v. Crockford, [2006] B.C.J. No. 1724, British Columbia Court of Appeal, August 1, 2006, Huddart, Levine and Smith JJ.A. A chamber’s judge had quashed a preliminary ...

An appeal by the University from a judge’s conclusion that the human rights complaint against the University was not defective, was dismissed. A finding of “probable cause” under the old Saskatchewan Human Rights Code was procedural in character. As such, the requirement did not survive recent amendments. The conclusion that the complaint was filed by a person was a finding of fact which was entitled to substantial deference. The judge’s decision on that point was reasonable. The Commission had no obligation to obtain the consent of the person aggrieved to hear the complaint and therefore did not err in failing to consider that question.

27. June 2006 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Gender – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Judicial review – Legislation – Retrospective operation – Procedural requirements and fairness University of Saskatchewan v. Women 2000, [2006] S.J. No. 231, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, April 17, 2006, Cameron, Richards and Smith JJ.A. A group of ...