Losenno’s appeal from the dismissal of his application for judicial review of a Human Rights Commission decision not to refer Losenno’s complaint about his former employer to a Board of Inquiry was dismissed where the court found the Commission’s decision was not patently unreasonable

27. December 2005 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Jurisdiction – Settlement offers – Effect of – Refusal to refer to Board of Inquiry – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Losenno v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [2005] O.J. No. ...

An appeal of a decision of an applications judge that the evidence in support of applications for judicial review be restricted to the certified Tribunal record was allowed. The applications judge erred in failing to consider that evidence outside of the administrative record can be considered where the grounds for review are any of the various forms of jurisdictional error.

27. December 2005 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Marital status – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Judicial review applications – Evidence – admissibility – Jurisdiction McFayden v. Canada (Attorney General), [2005] F.C.J. No. 1817, Federal Court of Appeal, November 2, 2005, Desjardins, Evans and Sharlow JJ.A. An applications judge granted the Respondent’s motion ...

The Court dismissed the Province’s petition for judicial review of a decision of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) that the Province discriminated against the Respondents, Ms. Hutchinson and her father, Mr. Hutchinson, on the basis of physical disability and family status in the manner in which it was applying its Choices in Support for Independent Living (“CSIL”) policy which included a blanket prohibition against hiring family members. The Court upheld the Tribunal’s finding that a prima facie case of discrimination had been established against the Province and upheld the Tribunal’s order of monetary compensation of $105,850 to Mr. Hutchinson for lost opportunity for employment.

27. December 2005 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Family members as care givers – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Patent unreasonableness – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Damages British Columbia v. Hutchinson, [2005] B.C.J. No. 2270, British Columbia Supreme Court, October 12, 2005, Cullen ...

Garvey’s appeal from the decision of the Federal Court dismissing his application for judicial review of the dismissal of his human rights complaint by the Canadian Human Rights Commission was dismissed where the court found that Garvey had never requested accommodation from his employer for his alleged disability

27. December 2005 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Duty to request accommodation – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Garvey v. Meyers Transport Ltd., [2005] F.C.J. No. 1684, Federal Court of Appeal, October 13, 2005, Desjardins, Evans and Sharlow JJ.A. Garvey was ...

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal that female communications operators employed by the police department were not entitled to pay equity with their mostly male peers at fire department. The appropriate standard of review was reasonableness. The tribunal’s decision that the female communications operators were employed by the Vancouver Police Board and the fire dispatchers were employed by the City of Vancouver, and thus equity considerations did not apply as between the two groups, was reasonable.

25. October 2005 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Gender – Wage disparity – Employment law – Pay equity – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Reid v. Vancouver Police Board, [2005] B.C.J. No. 1832, British Columbia Court of Appeal, August 18, 2005, Donald, Lowry and ...

A decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) to institute an inquiry into a complaint after an Investigator appointed by the Commission recommended dismissal of the complaint did not attract the duty of procedural fairness to provide written reasons. In certain circumstances, the duty of procedural fairness requires the provision of a written explanation of a decision where the decision has important significance for the individual and where there is a statutory right of appeal. This was not such a case.

25. October 2005 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Investigations – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Judicial review – Failure to provide reasons – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Durrer, [2005] F.C.J. No. 1321, Federal Court, August 8, ...

The Court dismissed an application for judicial review of the Human Rights Commission’s decision to dismiss the Applicant’s allegations of discrimination, but allowed her application with respect to an allegation of retaliation

25. October 2005 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Employment law – Conditions of employment – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Investigations – Evidence – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Limitations of actions – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Correctness Dubois v. Canada (Attorney ...

The Court dismissed an appeal from a reviewing judge’s decision upholding a decision of the chief commissioner of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission to refer a complaint to a hearing panel of the Commission. The reviewing judge had correctly found that the chief commissioner’s decision was reasonable.

25. October 2005 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Race – Pay equity – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Jurisdiction – Investigations – Evidence – Role of investigator – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Economic Development Edmonton v. Wong, [2005] A.J. No. 1051, Alberta Court of ...

The decision of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal to dismiss a complaint was not patently unreasonable as the Tribunal found that there were insufficient facts alleged regarding any discrimination on the part of the government towards the Complainant to move the complaint out of the realm of conjecture

26. July 2005 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Judicial review – No reasonable cause of action – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Shilander (Re), [2005] B.C.J. No. 1123, British Columbia Supreme Court, May 18, 2005, Gerow J. The Complainant filed a complaint with the B.C. Human ...

The language used by Parliament in the Canadian Human Rights Act is wide enough to cover its own employees; therefore, the former Speaker of the House of Commons could not evoke the principles of parliamentary privilege in order to prevent the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal from investigating the Respondent’s complaint. However, the Respondent’s complaints could have been adjudicated under the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act which was intended to be the exclusive method of dispute resolution for such employees. As such, the appeal was allowed.

26. July 2005 0
Administrative law – Government – Employees – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Employment law – Parliamentary employment – Constitutional law – Parliamentary privilege – Application of human rights legislation Canada (House of Commons) v. Vaid, [2005] S.C.J. No. 28, Supreme Court of Canada, May 20, 2005, McLachlin C.J. and Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella ...