Moore’s complaint under the Human Rights Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 214 alleging discrimination by reason of race was dismissed by a Board of Inquiry constituted under the Act. The Board held that the fact that Moore’s employer had called her “kemosabe” did not establish harassment or discrimination where Moore could not prove that she had made known that this appellation was offensive to her. Moore’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed as the court concluded that the Board had not erred in the burden it placed upon Moore to prove her case.

28. December 2004 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Race – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights – Burden of proof Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission) v. Play It Again Sports Ltd., [2004] N.S.J. No. 403, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, October 29, 2004, Glube C.J.N.S., Chipman and Hamilton JJ.A. Moore, a Mi’kmaq, had been ...

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of an employer (“BC Hydro”) and reinstated the decision of the Human Rights Commission (“HRC”) dismissing, at a preliminary stage, the complaint of an employee (“Lee”). The court held that the reviewing judge erred in failing to give due deference to the HRC by substituting her view of the evidence for the view of the HRC.

23. November 2004 0
Administrative law – Employment law – Appointment – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Race – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Evidenciary issues – Judicial review – Evidence Lee v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [2004] B.C.J. No. 1851, British Columbia Court of Appeal, September 10, 2004, Finch C.J.B.C., Prowse and Donald JJ.A. Lee is ...

In weighing the merits of the Appellants’ rezoning requests, the Defendant municipality was discharging a duty delegated to it by the legislature. The Defendant was bound to exercise the powers conferred upon it fairly, in good faith and with a view to the public interest. The Defendant did not fulfil its duty of procedural fairness in refusing two rezoning applications brought by the Appellants as it gave no reasons for its denial. In refusing to justify its decision, the Defendant breached its duty of procedural fairness.

24. August 2004 0
Administrative law – Municipalities – Planning and zoning – Appeals – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Municipal councils – Statutory provisions – Public interest – Judicial review – Failure to provide reasons – Procedural requirements and fairness – Charter of Rights – Discrimination Congrégation des témoins de Jéhovah de St-Jérôme-Lafontaine v. Lafontaine (Village), [2004] S.C.J. No. 45, Supreme ...

On an application for judicial review of a decision of a Human Rights Commissioner (the “Commissioner”), the court found that the Commissioner erred in law in finding gender discrimination against the complainant with respect to her rate of pay as a summer police constable. However, the court found that the Commissioner’s decision that the complainant was discriminated against in employment on the basis of gender was supported by the evidence and there was therefore no reviewable error with respect to that issue.

27. July 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Gender – Burden of proof – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter DeWare v. Kensington (Town), [2004] P.E.I.J. No. 40, Prince Edward Island Supreme Court – Trial Division, May 28, 2004, Matheson J. The ...

The Quebec Human Rights Tribunal was entitled to assume jurisdiction over a complaint brought by a minority group composed primarily of younger and less experienced teachers who alleged that their union’s modification of a collective agreement with the Province of Quebec discriminated against them. The Tribunal was entitled to hear the complaint despite a provision in the Quebec Labour Code requiring that every grievance be submitted to arbitration.

27. July 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Jurisdiction to hear a complaint – Labour law – Collective agreements – Mandatory arbitration – Jurisdiction of labour arbitrator to hear human rights complaint – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Age – Charter of Rights – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Compliance with legislation – ...

The court held that the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal had erred by accepting jurisdiction to decide an issue of alleged discrimination in an application of the Income Security Act, when the legislature had confirmed exclusive jurisdiction on a different tribunal, the Commission des Affaires Sociales (CAS), to hear appeals in respect of decisions made under the Act

27. July 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Jurisdiction to hear a complaint under the Income Security Act – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Gender – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Statutory powers Quebec (Attorney General) v. Quebec (Human Rights Tribunal), [2004] S.C.J. No. 35, Supreme Court of Canada, June ...

The appeal by an employer (“Vantage”) from a decision of the Human Rights Panel of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission was dismissed where the court found that the evidence considered by the Panel clearly established that Vantage had not given consideration to accommodation of the physical limitations of the complainant (“Marcil”). The court also upheld the Panel’s decision to award $28,000 as compensation for lost employment income.

25. May 2004 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Duty to accommodate – Employment law – Termination of employment – Damages – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Vantage Contracting Inc. v. Marcil, [2004] A.J. No. 368, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, March 29, 2004, ...

The Ontario Nurses’ Association (the “Association”), representing a nurse who was terminated for innocent absenteeism due to disability (“Tilley”), successfully applied for judicial review of a decision of a Board of Arbitration which had held that the hospital’s failure to pay severance to Tilley did not violate s.15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”)

23. March 2004 0
Administrative law – Employment law – Termination of employment – Severance pay – Human rights complaints – Disability – Charter of Rights – Discrimination – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Arbitration Board – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Ontario Nurses’ Assn. v. Mount Sinai Hospital, [2004] O.J. No. 162, Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Divisional ...

A teacher with the Scarborough Board of Education (“Layzell”) unsuccessfully applied for judicial review of decisions of the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) regarding complaints she had filed alleging discrimination and reprisal based on her sex and disability as an individual afflicted by multiple sclerosis

23. March 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Teachers – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Duty to accommodate – Judicial review application – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Procedural requirements and fairness Layzell v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [2003] O.J. No. 5448, Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Divisional Court, January ...

An employee of Canpar Industries suffered an off-work injury and received long-term disability benefits paid by a plan provided by the employer in accordance with a collective agreement. The employer ultimately dismissed the employee, and the employee grieved his dismissal, saying that it was a violation of the collective agreement and essentially a matter of discrimination based on disability under the Human Rights Code. The employer objected to the jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator to hear that grievance, and the arbitrator ultimately dismissed the employer’s objection that he did not have jurisdiction to address the issue of accommodation with respect to disability and the Human Rights Code. Canpar Industries appealed to the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that where a collective agreement is silent regarding the application of human rights principles and the essence of the grievor’s case is that he has been discriminated against by reason of disability, an arbitrator acting under the Labour Relations Code, R.S.B.C. 1996 c. 244 may take jurisdiction over the grievance.

27. January 2004 0
Administrative law – Labour law – Arbitration – Collective agreements – Jurisdiction of labour arbitrator to hear human rights complaints – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Correctness Canpar Industries v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 115, [2003] B.C.J. No. 2577, British Columbia Court of Appeal, November ...