The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal does not have the power to award legal costs as part of a compensation order

22. November 2011 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Gender – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Compliance with legislation – Administrative tribunals – Costs – Right to award costs Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] S.C.J. No. ...

The Court set aside and remitted back to a re-hearing the decision of British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal which had found that sexual harassment constituted discrimination based on sex

27. September 2011 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Sexual harassment – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Compliance with legislation Friedmann v. MacGarvie, 2011 BCSC 1147, [2011] B.C.J. No. 1613, British Columbia Supreme Court, August 24, 2011, L.W. Bernard J. For approximately ...

The applicant, the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”), applied for judicial review of a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) in which it dismissed a complaint filed by the complainant, William G.M. Shmuir, against the respondent, Carnival Cruise Lines (“Carnival”) for violating the Canadian Human Rights Act

23. August 2011 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Canadian Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Disability – Discrimination – Judicial review – Evidence – Legislative compliance Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Shmuir, [2011] F.C.J. No. 1040, 2011 FC 839, Federal Court, July 8, 2011, Simpson J. The visually-impaired complainant had attended a ...

An appeal by the B.C. Veterinary Medical Association (the “Association”), from an order quashing the decision of the Association’s disciplinary committee and council, was allowed. The B.C. Court of Appeal held that although tribunals normally have the capacity to adjudicate on issues of bias, if the issue is being heard before a different body then this amounts to an abuse of process and is a waste of resources.

26. July 2011 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Veterinary Associations – Human rights – Discrimination – Veterinarians – Disciplinary proceedings – Judicial review – Abuse of process – test – Jurisdiction – Institutional bias Bajwa v. British Columbia Veterinary Medical Association, [2011] B.C.J. 1065, 2011 BCCA 265, British Columbia Court of Appeal, June 13, 2011, ...

The Federal Court held that the Public Service Staffing Tribunal breached its duty of procedural fairness by excluding potentially relevant evidence without proper consideration and set aside the tribunal’s decision

28. June 2011 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Public Service Staffing Tribunal – Employment law – Appointment – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Race – Minority rights – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice – Evidence Murray v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] F.C.J. No. 682, 2011 FC 542, Federal Court, ...

A man (“Leonard”) employed to work on the Hibernia Oil Platform, appealed from a decision of the Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) dismissing his complaint that his employer (Noble”) discriminated against him on the basis of a perceived drug addiction

24. May 2011 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Drug and alcohol testing – Employer’s policies – Judicial review – Evidence – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Leonard v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Human Rights Commission), [2011] N.J. No. 113, 2011 NLTD(G) ...

The Court quashed two decisions made by members of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal ordering a Tribunal inquiry into the respondents’ age discrimination complaints. The complaints had initially been refused an inquiry by the Human Rights Commissioner and the Court was of the view that had that decision been overturned, it would have undermined the legislative intention at the time the age discrimination was alleged as well as when the legislation was amended.

26. April 2011 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Age – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness – Labour law – Collective agreements – Statutory interpretation – Retrospective and retroactive operation University of Regina v. Kly, [2011] S.J. No. 141, ...

The Court of Appeal held that the failure of a member of the Human Rights Tribunal to address an inconsequential piece of evidence in written reasons does not amount to a breach of procedural fairness or a substantive error

25. January 2011 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence – Failure to provide reasons Gichuru v. Law Society of British Columbia, [2010] B.C.J. No. 2390, 2010 BCCA 543, British Columbia Court of Appeal, December 2, 2010, C.A. ...

The applicant (Aurora College) successfully applied to quash the decision of an adjudicator established under the Human Rights Act. The adjudicator had ordered that an investigative report be disclosed to her.

28. December 2010 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Adjudications – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Judicial review – Disclosure – Relevance of information disclosed – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness – Inquiries vs. adjudications Aurora College v. Niziol, [2010] N.W.T.J. No. 86, 2010 NWTSC 87, Northwest ...

The applicant was successful in seeking a judicial review order on the basis that the Canadian Human Rights Commission (“Commission”) did not conduct a sufficient/neutral investigation as it ignored crucial evidence and did not address several critical aspects of the applicant’s claim

23. November 2010 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Investigations – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Age – Employment law – Appointment – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Bias – Evidence Hughes v. Canada (Attorney General), [2010] F.C.J. No. 1193, 2010 FC 963, Federal Court, September 27, 2010, ...