A former RCMP cadet and Muslim (“Tahmourpour”) successfully appealed from the dismissal of his human rights complaint on the basis that the investigator had failed to investigate obviously crucial evidence and had thereby breached the duty of fairness. The matter was remitted back to the Human Rights Commission.

28. June 2005 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Investigations – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Witnesses Tahmourpour v. Canada (Solicitor General), [2005] F.C.J. No. 543, Federal Court of Appeal, April 6, 2005, Rothstein, Sexton and Evan JJ.A. Tahmourpour, a Canadian citizen of Middle Eastern ...

The Court of Appeal held that a board of inquiry appointed under the Human Rights Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 214 (the “Act”) was not entitled to make an award of legal costs as part of its compensation award

28. June 2005 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Costs – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Right to award costs – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Standard of review – Correctness Halifax (Regional Municipality) v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), [2005] N.S.J. No. 156, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, April 22, 2005, ...

The Appellants did not have the right to bypass the Administrative Tribunal of Quebec since that body had exclusive jurisdiction to hear appeals in respect of entitlement to minority language education, and that administrative appeal process could not be circumvented

24. May 2005 0
Administrative law – Charter of Rights – Discrimination – Human rights complaints – Language rights – Judicial review application – Quasi-judicial tribunals – Jurisdiction – Appeal process – Compliance with legislation – Remedies – Charter relief Okwuobi v. Lester B. Pearson School Board; Casimir v. Quebec (Attorney General); Zorilla v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2005] S.C.J. No. 16, Supreme ...

The reviewing judge did not err in dismissing the judicial review application as the adjudicator interpreted the discrimination provisions in the Applicant’s collective agreement in a way that was neither silly, bordering on the absurd, nor clearly irrational. The construction given to the discrimination provisions was rationally supported by the relevant legislation.

24. May 2005 0
Administrative law – Labour law – Collective agreements – Working conditions – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Adjudication – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Bainbridge v. New Brunswick (Board of Management), [2005] N.B.J. No. 114, New Brunswick Court of Appeal, March 10, 2005, W.S. Turnbull, M.E.L. Larlee and J.T. Robertson JJ.A. The Applicants ...

The court dismissed an application for judicial review and held that the Ontario Human Rights Commission had not breached the requirement of procedural fairness in not placing certain documents before the Commission and that the Commission’s exercise of discretion regarding a limitation period did not exceed its jurisdiction and was not in error

22. March 2005 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Limitations – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Procedural requirements and fairness – Disclosure – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Hassaram v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [2005] O.J. No. 29, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, January 7, 2005, ...

An employee’s claim against her former employer under the Ontario Pay Equity Act was barred by virtue of the release and settlement executed by the employee upon her termination

22. March 2005 0
Administrative law – Employment law – Termination of employment – Pay equity – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Wage disparity – Settlements – Releases – Validity – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness Bucyrus Blades of Canada Ltd. v. McKinley, [2005] O.J. No. 231, Ontario Superior Court ...

The United Mexican States (“Mexico”) appealed the decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice upholding an award by a NAFTA arbitration tribunal which had found that Mexico had engaged in discriminatory conduct by granting tax rebates to domestic companies that were denied to a company engaged in a similar business owned by a U.S. citizen (“Karpa”). The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and held that the arbitration tribunal was entitled to a high degree of deference and Mexico had not shown any basis upon which to interfere with the arbitration award.

22. February 2005 0
Administrative law – Arbitration and award – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Arbitration Board – NAFTA – Tax rebates – Companies – Less favourable treatment – Discrimination – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Disclosure United Mexican States v. Karpa, [2005] O.J. No. 16, Ontario Court of Appeal, January 11, 2005, D.H. Doherty, R.P. Armstrong ...

The Court dismissed the Province’s application for an order to stay part of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal’s order requiring payment to the Respondents, pending a decision of the Court on judicial review

25. January 2005 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Family members as care givers – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Judicial review application – Stay of proceedings – Test British Columbia v. Hutchinson, [2004] B.C.J. No. 2434, British Columbia Supreme Court, November 24, 2004, Ralph J. The British Columbia Human Rights ...

The Court allowed an appeal of a judicial review application concerning a decision of the Chairperson of the P.E.I. Human Rights Commission to affirm the Commission’s dismissal of the Applicant’s human rights complaint. The Court ordered the Chairperson of the Commission to appoint a Human Rights Panel to deal with the Appellant’s complaint.

25. January 2005 0
Administrative law – Judicial review application – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission executive director powers – Human Rights complaints – Discrimination Ayangma v. Prince Edward Island (Human Rights Commission), [2004] P.E.I.J. No. 84, Prince Edward Island Supreme Court – Appeal Division, November 12, 2004, Mitchell C.J.P.E.I., ...

The court found that the higher standard of proof applied by the Human Rights Tribunal Panel was wrong and contrary to the very essence of human rights legislation. However, in reviewing all of the evidence, the court held that the conclusion of the Panel was correct. The facts established by the Applicant did not amount to discrimination against the Applicant by the employer on the basis of race, colour, ancestry or place of origin with regard to employment or any term or condition of employment.

28. December 2004 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Bobb v. Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission), [2004] A.J. No. 1117, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, October 12, 2004, Verville J. The Applicant filed a complaint with the Human Rights ...