The BC Human Rights Tribunal successfully appealed a decision of the BC Supreme Court and, in doing so, changed the legal test for family status discrimination in BC

20. June 2023 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Human Rights Tribunal – Judicial review – Appeals – Legislative compliance – Standard of review – Correctness – Human rights – Discrimination – Family status – Marital status – Gender – Labour relations Gibraltar Mines Ltd. v. Harvey, [2023] B.C.J. No. 720, 2023 BCCA 168, British Columbia Court of ...

Human Rights Tribunal can refuse to accept complaints for filing if facts do not allege, beyond the realm of conjecture, a contravention of the Code

20. April 2021 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Human Rights Tribunal – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Human rights complaints – Private clubs – Age – Gender – Race – Harassment Gichuru v. Vancouver Swing Society, [2021] B.C.J. No. 440, 2021 BCCA 103, British Columbia Court ...

That was yesterday, and yesterday’s gone – the Vavilov decision does not invite us to return to an era where “patent unreasonableness” is given a meaning beyond “reasonableness”

18. August 2020 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Human Rights Tribunal – Gender – Private clubs – Judicial review – Evidence – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness Intercounty Tennis Association v. Ontario (Human Rights Tribunal), [2020] O.J. No. 1473, 2020 ONSC 1632, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, April 7, 2020, H.E. Sachs, N.L. ...

Ontario Court quashes City of Hamilton’s decision to remove political party’s discriminatory, anti-transgender bus-stop ads due to failure to consider the party’s Charter right to free speech

18. December 2018 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Municipal councils – Judicial review – Natural justice – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Gender Christian Heritage Party of Canada v. Hamilton (City), [2018] O.J. No. 5105, 2018 ONSC 3690, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, October 4, ...

ABQB upholds Chief Commissioner’s decision on judicial review, concluding the Chief Commissioner drew a reasonable inference that preference for a female babysitter could be easily explained

20. February 2018 0
A man complained to the Human Rights Commission that he was discriminated against based on gender when a woman failed to consider him for a babysitting position she posted on Kijiji on the basis that he was male. She was looking for someone to babysit her child in her home and preferred a female. The ...

The plaintiff was employed by the defendant for nine years as a massage therapy instructor. Following the plaintiff’s return from maternity leave, her hours were unilaterally reduced and her responsibilities and income diminished. In four months, her hours were reduced to zero. The plaintiff successfully brought an action against the defendant for wrongful dismissal. The court also found that the defendant employer had discriminated against the plaintiff on the basis of sex and family status, justifying a $20,000 award for injuries to feelings, dignity and self-respect. In addition, punitive damages of $5,000 was awarded based on lack of forthrightness and bad-faith conduct on the part of the defendant. The total award of $42,700 was reduced to $25,000 to reflect the court’s monetary jurisdiction.

24. March 2015 0
Administrative law – Employment law – Termination of employment – Wrongful dismissal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Marital status – Gender – Remedies – Damages Bray v. Canadian College of Massage and Hydrotherapy, [2015] O.J. No. 465, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, January 31, 2015, J.S. Winny Deputy J. The plaintiff was employed ...

On judical review the court found that a failure to interview supervisors, when there is an allegation made against them that they were discriminatory, amounted to a breach of procedural fairness pursuant to the test set out in Slattery v. Canada (Human Rights Commission), (1994) 73 F.T.R. 161.

25. March 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Human Rights complaints – Discrimination – Gender – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence Tessier v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), [2014] N.S.J. No. 76, 2014 NSSC 65, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, February 19, 2014, A.J. LeBlanc J. From 1998 ...

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal by the Coquitlam School District from a decision of a chambers judge on application for judicial review. The Appeal Court found that the chambers judge erred in applying a correctness standard to a decision of the BC Human Rights Tribunal where the tribunal considered the complainant’s mitigation of damages in its award of compensation for wage loss. The Tribunal was under no obligation to apply the common law test for mitigation in determining what amount of compensation to award. The issue of assessing compensation was a discretionary one which attracted a standard of review of patent unreasonableness as prescribed by s.59 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, SBC 2004, c.45.

23. April 2013 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Discretion of tribunal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Gender – Remedies – Damages – Duty to mitigate – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Patent unreasonableness J.J. v. Coquitlam School District No. 43, [2013] B.C.J. No. 542, 2013 ...

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 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 ...