The Applicant Davidson successfully applied for judicial review of the Respondent Commission’s decision to dismiss her human rights complaint at a preliminary stage. The matter was referred back to the Commission for reconsideration taking into account the reasons for judgment.

27. October 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Duty to accommodate – Investigations – Judicial review – Evidence – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Davidson v. Canada Post Corp., [2009] F.C.J. No. 987, Federal Court, July 9, 2009, ...

The Petitioner applied for judicial review of a decision of the BC Human Rights Tribunal, which had found that the Petitioner had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on the Respondent’s failure to fund prostate cancer screening tests. The Court found that the Tribunal had erred in conflating the question of the Respondent’s bona fide and reasonable justification into its consideration as to whether the Petitioner had established a prima facie case of discrimination and in applying an improper test to that analysis. The Court remitted the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration.

25. August 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Gender – Government funding for screening tests – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter – Compliance with legislation Armstrong v. British Columbia (Ministry of Health), [2009] B.C.J. No. 1279, British Columbia Supreme ...

The Petitioner (Gonzalez) applied for judicial review of a decision of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, which found that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the Petitioner’s complaint. The application for judicial review was dismissed.

23. June 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Duty to accommodate – Judges – Judicial immunity – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Standard of review – Correctness Gonzalez v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [2009] B.C.J. No. 955, British Columbia Supreme Court, ...

The Applicant (Khiamal) successfully applied for judicial review of a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal that dismissed his complaint of discrimination against the Respondent, Greyhound Canada Transportation Corporation

23. June 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Race – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Evidence Khiamal v. Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission), [2009] F.C.J. No. 612, Federal Court, May 12, 2009, Mandamin J. Khiamal (the “Applicant”) is a man ...

The standard of review of an adjudicator’s decision made pursuant to the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1993, S.S. 1993, c. O-1.1, on a point of law, is correctness. Section 27 of the Act which prohibits an employer from taking discriminatory action against a worker applies only as between the employer and the employer’s worker. The section does not apply as between an employer and a person who is a worker on the employer’s worksite but is not employed by the employer but by some other entity.

26. May 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Occupational Health and Safety Officer – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Compliance with legislation – Discrimination – Labour relations – Working conditions – Workers compensation – Worker – definition – Employer – definition Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Inc. v. Oppenlander, [2009] S.J. No. ...

The appeal by Carter from the dismissal by the Supreme Court of her petition for judicial review of the decision of a British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) which had dismissed her complaint under Section 27(1)(d)(ii) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996 c.210 (the “Code”) was dismissed where the Court agreed that the Tribunal was within its jurisdiction to dismiss the claim in circumstances where proceeding would have resulted in the same or nearly the same award as a rejected and reasonable settlement offer

26. May 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Jurisdiction – Public interest – Employment law – Termination of employment – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Natural justice Carter v. Travelex Canada Ltd., [2009] B.C.J. ...

The Court allowed an application by the Province for judicial review of a decision of the Human Rights Commission, which had found that there was a prima facie case of discrimination in a matter concerning an autistic adult and the treatment and care provided to him. The Court found that there were numerous violations of procedural fairness, including the Commission’s failure to review evidence when it concluded that the adult was not adequately accommodated by the services he received, failing to address the appropriate question and not performing a comparative analysis, broadening the complaint without advising the applicant, and allowing a delay of 68 months which was excessive and amounted to an abuse of process.

28. April 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Discrimination – Disability – Duty to accommodate – Judicial review – Delay – Procedural requirements and fairness – Abuse of process – Standard of review – Correctness New Brunswick (Department of Social Development) v. New Brunswick Human Rights Commission, [2009] N.B.J. No. 45, ...

Employer’s refusal to allow a woman who had taken maternity and parental leave to return to work at the conclusion of her leave can be discrimination on the basis of sex. However, in such a case, the Human Rights Tribunal must consider all of the circumstances and ask whether it is reasonable to infer that the maternity leave was a causative factor in the refusal to continue employment. Where the refusal to continue the woman’s employment following maternity leave is based not on the prohibited ground of sex, but rather on the basis of customer or employer preference for the replacement worker, and where valid reasons are provided for the preference, unconnected to any prohibited grounds, an inference of discrimination will not be justified.

24. March 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Gender – Employment law – Termination of employment – Judicial review – Evidence Human Rights Commission v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Minister of Health and Community Services), [2009] N.J. No. 34, 2009 NLCA 9, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme ...

The Applicant University (the “University”) sought a judicial review of a human rights panel decision not to add the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1870 (the “Union”) as a Respondent to certain complaint proceedings. The University’s application was granted and the human rights panel was directed to add the Union as a party.

24. March 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Labour law – Collective agreements – Mandatory retirement – Universities – Judicial review – Parties – Standard of review – Correctness – Practice and procedure – Adding parties – test University of Prince Edward Island v. Nilsson, [2009] ...

Section 67(1), Public Utilities Act, R.S.N.S. 1989 c. 380, which prohibits the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board from setting a rate for low income consumers different from that chargeable to other consumers for the same circumstances and conditions respecting electrical service, was found not to discriminate by adverse effect based on the listed categories of sex, race, national or ethnic origin, age and disability in section 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the recognized analogous category of marital status. Poverty was not considered an analogous ground under section 15(1) Charter.

24. March 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Poverty – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Utility services – Electricity rates – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation Boulter v. Nova Scotia Power Inc., [2009] N.S.J. No. 64, 2009 NSCA 17, Nova Scotia Court of ...