The Respondent was an employee of the Federal Government who suffered severe and long-standing respiratory problems. After a number of long term absences, the Respondent was dismissed on grounds that she was incapable of performing the duties of her office. The Respondent filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (“the Commission”). The Commission investigated the matter and dismissed the Respondent’s complaint on the grounds that discrimination had not been shown. The Respondent obtained a copy of the Commission’s investigation report and appealed the Commission’s decision to the Federal Court (Trial Division). The applications judge set aside the Commission’s decision to dismiss the claim on the grounds that the investigator had failed to include a great deal of information that he had obtained from the Ministry and consequently the Respondent did not have an opportunity to respond to the information. The Ministry appealed the Trial Division’s decision, arguing that the Commission’s decision-making process did not violate the Respondent’s right to procedural fairness. In allowing the appeal, the court noted that there was no basis for the notion that an investigator has a duty to disclose all information uncovered in the course of investigation to a complainant. Upon reviewing the investigation report, the court concluded that it was reasonable and adequate and that the Commission was entitled to some deference in their decision to dismiss a complaint.

27. May 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Investigative bodies – Duty to disclose evidence – Fairness – Judicial review – Breach of procedural fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness – Patent unreasonableness Hutchinson v. Canada (Minister of the Environment), [2003] F.C.J. No. 439, Federal ...

A Human Rights complainant (“Gismondi”) was unsuccessful in his appeal of a decision by the Human Rights Commission not to deal with his complaint because it was not brought in a timely manner. The court held that procedural fairness had been afforded to Gismondi in the review of the Commission’s decision as he was given ample notice of the review and an opportunity to be heard. The court further held that the Commission’s reasons, although extremely brief, were sufficient, given the “screening” or primarily administrative nature of the decision at issue.

22. April 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Age – Limitations – Judicial review application – Breach of procedural fairness – Natural justice – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Failure to provide adequate reasons Gismondi v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [2003] O.J. No. 419, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, February 14, 2003, Blair, E.M. ...

On appeal, a Human Rights complainant failed to establish that an adjudicator under the Human Rights Code, R.S.N. 1990, c.H-14, erred in failing to find discrimination on the basis of disability or that the Trial Division judge erred on appeal. The fact that her employer considered her prior use of sick leave in determining which of two employees should be awarded the position of “lead hand” porter did not amount to discrimination on the basis of physical or mental disability as the complainant’s absences from work did form evidence of a pattern of illness or injury which would indicate that degree of permanence or impairment necessary to prove disability.

22. April 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Definition – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Evans v. Health Care Corporation of St. John’s, [2003] N.J. No. 61, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court – Court of Appeal, March 6, 2003, Cameron and Welsh JJ.A. and Russell J. (ex officio) The complainant hospital ...

Ms. Pritchard was terminated from employment with Sears Canada and filed a Human Rights complaint. The majority of the complaint was dismissed by the Human Rights Commission. Ms. Pritchard commenced an application for judicial review of the Commission’s refusal to deal with her complaint. During the course of the review Ms. Pritchard’s counsel requested a legal opinion that was provided to the commissioners by the Commission’s in-house counsel. The Commission argued that the opinion was privileged. The Divisional Court held that the opinion was not privileged. The decision of the three judge panel of the Divisional Court was overturned by the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Ontario Court of Appeal concluded that the opinion was privileged.

25. March 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Judicial review application – Solicitor-client privilege – Boards and tribunals – In-house legal opinion Pritchard v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [2003] O.J. No. 215, Ontario Court of Appeal, January 29, 2003, Finlayson, Charron and Armstrong JJ.A. The issue raised in the appeal was whether a legal opinion prepared ...

The Petitioner, a School Board, succeeded in its application to quash a decision of a BC Human Rights Tribunal, allowing a student’s complaint of discrimination against it

25. February 2003 0
Administrative law – Schools – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Sexual orientation – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness North Vancouver School District No. 44 v. Jubran, [2003] B.C.J. No. 10, British Columbia Supreme Court, January 2, 2003, Stewart, J. Jubran, a high school student, filed a complaint of discrimination against School District No. ...

A complainant to the Canadian Human Rights Commission (“Baltruweit”) was successful in his application to have the court overturn the decision of the Commission to dismiss his complaint at the investigative stage. The court held that the failure of the Commission to provide Baltruweit with the substance of the evidence of a legal opinion relating to the complaint was a breach of its duty of procedural fairness and the matter was referred back to the Commission for a re-determination.

28. January 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Evidence – Judicial review application – Breach of procedural fairness – Hearings – Disclosure – Solicitor-client privilege Baltruweit v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] F.C.J. No. 1615, Federal Court of Canada – Trial Division, November 19, 2002, Gibson J. Baltruweit was employed by the Canadian Security Intelligence ...

Alberta Report appealed a decision of the Alberta Human Rights Panel (the “Panel”) made pursuant to s. 33 of the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A. 1980 1980, c-H-11.7. The principal issue on appeal concerned the extent to which the Panel could take notice of evidence introduced before other tribunals and whether in this instance the Panel violated the Appellant’s right to know the case to be met. The appeal was allowed and the case remitted back to the Panel for rehearing.

28. January 2003 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Evidence – Judicial review – Natural justice – Evidence of other tribunals – Judicial notice Alberta Report v. Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission), [2002] A.J. No. 1539, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, December 10, 2002, Clark J. In the October 13, 1997 edition of its magazine, ...

A university professor complained that he had been discriminated against under the Universities Academic Pension Plan on the basis of gender as the pension plan provided less of a monthly pension benefit to a married male employee and his spouse than a married female employee and her spouse where the employees and their spouses are of the same age and where the employees have made the same contributions to the Plan over the same length of time. The Chief Commissioner of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (the “Commissioner”) dismissed the complaint as being “without merit”. The standard of review with respect to the Commissioner’s decision on legal issues or matters of mixed fact and law is that of correctness while the standard for factual findings is reasonableness simpliciter. The Commissioner’s conclusion that the complaint was “without merit” was unreasonable. The Commissioner’s function is that of a gatekeeper. His role is to determine if there is sufficient evidence to justify passing a complaint on to a human rights panel. In this case, there was sufficient basis in the evidence that the Commissioner ought to have advanced this matter to the next stage.

26. November 2002 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Gender – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Mis v. Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission), [2002] A.J. No. 1320, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, October 29, 2002, Lee J. The applicant university professor sought to set aside a decision of the ...

Ms. Ennis was hired as the manager of the Prince Albert Elks Club (the “Club”). She was fired approximately two weeks later after the Club learned that she was married to a convicted murderer. Ms. Ennis filed a complaint to the Human Rights Commission, alleging discrimination because of marital status. The Board of Inquiry did not find discrimination based on marital status as defined in the Regulations. The Court of Appeal disagreed.

22. October 2002 0
Administrative law – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Marital status Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Prince Albert Elks Club Inc., [2002] S.J. No. 552, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, September 26, 2002, Vancise, Lane and Jackson JJ.A. Ms. Ennis married Mr. Ennis in 1993 while he was serving a life sentence at a penitentiary for ...

Workers Compensation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 492 provisions granting spousal benefits for life to widowed parents 40 years of age or older when their children cease dependency but denying pension benefits to widowed parents under 40 years of age when their children cease dependency are discriminatory on the basis of age and therefore contrary to section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

27. August 2002 0
Administrative law – Workers compensation – Benefits – Charter of Rights – Discrimination – Equality rights Burnett v. British Columbia (Worker’s Compensation Board), [2002] B.C.J. No. 1738, British Columbia Supreme Court, July 25, 2002, Holmes J. The Petitioner’s spouse was killed in a work-related accident when she was 32 years old with one dependent child aged ...