The Applicant, North American Construction Group Inc., sought to nullify the appointment of a Human Rights Panel to consider the complaint of Glenn Todd Davis (“Davis”) who filed a complaint against North American Construction Group Inc. after a drug test taken as a condition of employment uncovered his history of marijuana use. Davis claimed that the marijuana use was for medicinal purposes only; however, he was held to have lied to the testing lab and to representatives of North American Construction Group Inc. and so he forfeited the right to avail himself of any personal remedy.

25. November 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Drug and alcohol testing – Occupational requirement – Employment law – Condition of employment – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter North American Construction Group Inc. v. Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission, [2003] A.J. No. 1198, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, September 5, 2003, ...

A former employee of British Columbia Hydro (“Lee”), successfully applied for a judicial review of the decision of the British Columbia Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) which declined to refer his complaint for a hearing before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal

25. November 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Race – Judicial review – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Investigative bodies – Evidenciary issues Lee v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [2003] B.C.J. No. 2200, British Columbia Supreme Court, September 22, 2003, Ross J. Lee had been employed as an engineer with BC ...

The Ingamo Hall Friendship Centre (“Ingamo”) appealed from a decision of the Fair Practices Officer in which Bergeron’s complaint of discrimination was allowed and damages for the lost wages and humiliation were awarded. The court allowed the appeal and overturned the decision of the Fair Practices Officer.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Race – Employment law – Termination of employment – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Fair Practices Officer – Judicial review – Evidence – Standard of review – Correctness Ingamo Hall Friendship Centre v. Bergeron, [2003] N.W.T.J. No. 51, Northwest Territories Supreme Court, July 30, 2003, Vertes J. Bergeron, ...

The founder and chair of a Vancouver based brokerage house (“Smolensky”), petitioned for prerogative and Charter relief to preclude the Securities Commission from hearing an allegation of insider trading made against him. The hearing was to be convened to consider the imposition of sanctions against Smolensky. The court held that judicial review of the situation should not be granted, given that the Securities Act contained a privative clause providing that no application for a judicial review under the Judicial Review Procedure Act could be instituted against the Commission or an officer of the Commission for an act done in good faith in the exercise or intended exercise of any power under the Securities Act. The court further held that the judicial review was precluded by the court’s decision in Pezim, where it was determined that the Notice of Hearing was not issued pursuant to an exercise of a statutory power. Smolensky’s application for Charter relief was also denied on the grounds that section 148 of the Securities Act, which prohibits a person from disclosing except to their own lawyer any information or evidence obtained or sought to be obtained with respect to Securities Commission investigations and audits against them, did not violate sections 2, 7, 8, 11 or the Preamble of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Governance – Penalties – Suspensions – Judicial review application – Privative clauses – Compliance with legislation – Remedies – Self-governing professions – Charter of Rights – Discrimination – Validity of legislation Smolensky v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), [2003] B.C.J. No. 1805, British Columbia Supreme Court, July 29, 2003, ...

Mrs. Lewis appealed the Director of the Department of Labour’s decision cancelling an officer’s decision that the School Board had wrongfully discriminated against the appellant. In 1996, Mrs. Lewis suspected that the cause of her health problems arose from the modular classroom to which she had recently been assigned and complained to the Board of Education. The Board declared that the classroom was safe. Mrs. Lewis filed a complaint with the Occupational Health and Safety Division of the Department of Labour, claiming that the Board had discriminated against her by failing to find her a new classroom. The tribunal held that the Board had failed to provide good and sufficient reasons for its failure to provide an alternative classroom. The Board appealed the decision and was successful on appeal. Mrs. Lewis appealed to the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, who held that the adjudicator committed no error in concluding that there was no discriminatory action by the Board against Mrs. Lewis. Mrs. Lewis’ appeal was dismissed.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Labour law – Working conditions – Schools – Teachers – Discrimination Lewis v. Regional School Division No. 4, [2003] S.J. No. 526, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, July 31, 2003, Matheson J. After being assigned to the modular classroom in 1996, Mrs. Lewis began to experience persistent health problems. Her family doctor ...

The Petitioners, female communications operators at the Vancouver Police Department, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal’s decision dismissing their claims that they were paid less than male communications operators doing the same work at the Vancouver Fire Department contrary to sections 12 and 13 of the Human Rights Code (the “Code”). The Tribunal concluded that for the purposes of wage discrimination under section 12 of the Code, the City, who employed the Fire Dispatchers, was not the Petitioner’s employer and therefore no wage-discrimination between employees of different sexes could have occurred.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Wage disparity – Gender – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness Reid v. Vancouver (City), [2003] B.C.J. No. 2043, British Columbia Supreme Court, September 3, 2003, Garson J. Section 12 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, ...

The Minister of Health Planning was successful in overturning a portion of the remedy aspect of a decision of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal directing the Minister to amend the birth registration form to provide an option of identifying as a parent, a non-biological parent who is the co-parent of a mother or a father. The court found that the Human Rights Tribunal was within its jurisdiction to Order that the Minister cease discriminating against same gender parents but exceeded its jurisdiction in directing that the Minister take specific steps with respect to altering the birth registration form.

23. September 2003 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Jurisdiction – Remedies – Declaratory relief – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Sexual orientation – Gender – Parent – definition – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness British Columbia (Minister of Health Planning) v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), [2003] B.C.J. No. 17552, British ...

The Board of School Trustees of School District No. 81 (the “School Board”) was successful in its appeal of an arbitration award in which the arbitrator found that the benefit plan of the School Board (the “Plan”) was discriminatory under section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the British Columbia Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210 in restricting dual coverage where both spouses were teachers. The court found that the Plan was not discriminatory as there was no deprivation of a benefit.

26. August 2003 0
Administrative law – Teachers – Labour law – Arbitration – Benefit plans – Dual coverage – Judicial review – Human rights complaints – Charter of Rights – Discrimination British Columbia Public School Employers’ Assn. v. British Columbia Teachers’ Federation, [2003] B.C.J. No. 1272, British Columbia Court of Appeal, May 30, 2003, Huddart, Braidwood and Thackray JJ.A. The Fort Nelson ...

A former employee of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (“Yuan”) petitioned pursuant to the Judicial Review Procedure Act for declarations concerning the dismissal of his complaint pursuant to the Human Rights Code. Yuan also sought an Order remitting the issue of his complaint back to the Human Rights Commission for consideration. The British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed his Petition.

24. June 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Duty to accommodate – Procedural fairness – Judicial review application – Investigative bodies – Fairness Yuan v. British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), [2003] B.C.J. No. 687, British Columbia Supreme Court, March 26, 2003, Melvin J. Yuan contended that the Commission, which had conducted an investigation and determined that ...

The court held that a policy requiring employees to undergo drug or alcohol testing, where the potential consequences of a positive test include the loss of employment, was considered a prima facie violation of section 7(1) of the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A. 2000 c. H-14 (the “Act”). However, where testing constitutes a bona fide occupational requirement, the section 7(1) prohibition against discrimination based on a physical or mental disability does not apply. The Court held that being drug and alcohol free is a bona fide requirement for employees of a small remote Metis Settlement with ongoing concerns about serious drug and alcohol abuse by community members.

24. June 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Drug and alcohol testing – Aboriginal issues – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission) v. Elizabeth Metis Settlement, [2003] A.J. No. 484, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, April 17, 2003, Bielby J. Elizabeth Metis Settlement (“the Settlement”) is ...