PDF version: What are you Trying to Prove? Discrimination, Complainants and Human Rights  

Case considered: Burgess v. Stephen W. Huk Professional Corporation, 2010 ABQB 424

In the past few years, it has become increasingly difficult to ascertain in human rights cases what exactly the complainant must prove in order to make out a claim of discrimination. The usual legal analysis for discrimination cases under the Alberta Human Rights Act, R.S.A. c. A-25.5 (”AHRA”) was established in Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v. Simpsons-Sears Ltd., [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536 (”O’Malley“) and is as follows:

1. Has the complainant made out a prima facie (sufficient to establish a case unless disproved) case of discrimination on a ground covered under the AHRA?

2. If yes, can the respondent nevertheless demonstrate that the contravention of the AHRA did not occur, was a bona fide occupational requirement, or was reasonable and justifiable in the circumstances?

3. If yes, there is no discrimination under the AHRA. If no, what is the appropriate remedy?

For many years, human rights commissions used the test for “discrimination” under s.15(1) of the Charter set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143:

I would say then that discrimination may be described as a distinction, whether intentional or not but based on grounds relating to personal characteristics of the individual or group, which has the effect of imposing burdens, obligations, or disadvantages on such individual or group not imposed upon others, or which withholds or limits access to opportunities, benefits, and advantages available to other members of society. Distinctions based on personal characteristics attributed to an individual solely on the basis of association with a group will rarely escape the charge of discrimination, while those based on an individual’s merits and capacities will rarely be so classed.

Thus, the complainant has the burden of making out a prima facie case that he or she had experienced discrimination (as set out above) on the basis of a ground listed under an area (e.g., employment) covered under the legislation.

This procedure seemed to serve human rights commissions well, but in 1999 uncertainty was introduced when some commissions adopted the new and complex legal test for s.15(1) devised by the Supreme Court of Canada in Law v. Canada, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497 (”Law“). The next several years of human rights cases often dealt with whether the test developed in Law was the proper test to be used in human rights cases. (See the discussion of this issue in my previous ABlawg post Human Rights Panel Faced with Mandatory Retirement (Again)). To further complicate matters, many legal experts believe the test for discrimination set out in Law has been modified by the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Kapp, 2008 SCC 41. In Burgess v. Stephen W. Huk Professional Corporation, Madam Justice M.T. Moreau does not mention the Kapp decision in her reasons, but she does set out a requirement that a complainant demonstrate the respondents’ knowledge of the grounds for discrimination. Arguably, this adds more complexity to this area of law.

Ms. Burgess was employed as a dental assistant starting in May 2005 in a clinic owned and operated by Dr. Huk (who was retired from dental practice). She was assigned to work primarily with Dr. Jacob, an associate dentist. Ms. Burgess was supervised by the office manager, Ms. Netter, and the head dental assistant, Ms. Brayer. Her duties included providing chair-side assistance to dentists (Dr. Jacob) during dental procedures, keeping operations sanitized, sterilizing equipment and managing patient flow (para. 5).

Read the rest of this entry »

PDF version: What’s in a name? Construction Owners Association of Alberta and Construction Labour Relations – An Alberta Association Concerned about “Employer” in the Alberta Human Rights Act 

Case considered: Lockerbie & Hole Industrial Inc. v. Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission), 2010 ABCA 184

It is fairly rare that two agencies not parties to an action would seek leave to intervene in a human rights appeal. I am not terribly surprised that the Alberta Human Rights Commission (formerly the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission) has appealed the 2009 Court of Queen’s Bench decision in Lockerbie & Hole Industrial Inc. v. Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission), 2009 ABQB 241. As I noted in my previous post on this case, the decision of Justice T.D. Clackson involving the interpretation of who is considered an “employer” under s. 7(1) of the Alberta Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. H-14 (now Alberta Human Rights Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. A-25.5) appeared to be contrary to both existing case law and the spirit of “large and liberal” interpretation normally given to human rights legislation. Apparently, there are Albertan companies and associations who share an interest in the outcome of the appeal.

Read the rest of this entry »

PDF version: Supreme Court of Canada Upholds Constitutionality of Publication Bans in Bail Hearings, Media Outlets Unhappy

Case Considered: Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada, 2010 SCC 21, an appeal from the Courts of Appeal of Ontario (Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada, 2009 ONCA 59) and Alberta (R. v. White, 2008 ABCA 294).

The Supreme Court of Canada recently dealt with appeals from Ontario (Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada) and Alberta (R. v. White) wherein several media outlets challenged the constitutionality of s. 517 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c.C-46, which sets out when judges must impose a mandatory publication ban for evidence heard in bail proceedings. In the White case, the Alberta Court of Appeal had determined that while Criminal Code s. 517 violates freedom of expression under Charter s. 2(b), it can nevertheless be saved by Charter s. 1 as reasonable and justifiable in a free and democratic society (see my previous post on White).

Read the rest of this entry »

Case considered: Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Attorney General of Canada, et al., 2009 FCA 309, leave to appeal to Supreme Court of Canada granted, SCC Bulletin April 23, 2010, #33507, 2010 CanLII 20527

PDF version: Legal costs can be an issue in human rights cases

In the past few years, the issue of whether and how much legal costs should be awarded in human rights cases has arisen several times in Alberta (see my post on Boissoin v. Lund, for example). The costs issue has also arisen in a federal human rights case and will soon be addressed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Read the rest of this entry »

Case considered: University of Alberta v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2010 ABQB 89

PDF version: Court Addresses the Duty of a University to Assist a Professor who was Seeking Information Related to his Teaching

In Alberta, universities are subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. F-25 (”FOIPA“). University of Alberta professor Dr. Mikhail Kovalyov applied to the University for access to two kinds of records (but only the first kind of record was the subject of the court case). His original access to information request asked for information pertaining to his proposal for changes to a math course provided to the Chair and Associate Chair of the Mathematical and Statistical Sciences Department (”Math Department”); in particular, he asked for “written complaints, notes of oral complaints and any and all other documentation including any email between the Chair and Associate Chair or anyone else pertaining to this matter” (at para. 2). The University asked for clarification of the request, and Dr. Kovalyov replied with additional information, including a CD containing an audio-recording of a conversation between unidentified individuals discussing the math course and related complaints. The University wrote to Dr. Kovalyov, replying that it understood that Dr. Kovalyov was also requesting the documents the Chair referred to at the end of the audio-record, as well as all other documents, emails, notes, phone records pertaining to any information related to it, including information about the identification of the person from the very top of the University that the Chair referred to in the recorded conversation. Dr. Kovalyov did not reply to the University’s clarification letter.

Read the rest of this entry »

Case considered: Boissoin v. Lund, 2010 ABQB 123

PDF version: Cost Decision in the Human Rights Case of Lund v. Boissoin

There are several ABlawg posts written about the human rights case involving Dr. Darren Lund’s complaint to the Alberta Human Rights Commission (see here). The case concerned the publication in the Red Deer Advocate of a letter to the editor written by Stephen Boissoin, which Dr. Lund alleged violated s.3 of Alberta’s Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. H-14 (”HRCMA“, recently re-enacted as the Alberta Human Rights Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. A-25.5 (”AHRA“)). Justice Earl Wilson recently issued a Memorandum of Decision on the issue of costs.

Read the rest of this entry »

Case considered: Alberta Teachers’ Association v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2010 ABCA 26

PDF version:  Court of Appeal Decision on Privacy Process Likely to Have Significant Impact on Office of Information and Privacy Commissioner

In a rare move, the Alberta Information and Privacy Commissioner, Frank Work, issued a strongly worded news release in response to the Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision in Alberta Teachers’ Association v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) (”ATA“). See January 29, 2010, “Commissioner Work expresses Grave Concern over Recent Court of Appeal Ruling.” Mr. Work said, “This decision may have dire implications for every tribunal in this province which has stipulated timelines. There should be a lot of concern on that front.” What prompted this comment?

Read the rest of this entry »

Case considered: R. v. Hape, 2007 SCC 26

PDF version: My Vote for R. v. Hape as a Significant Legal Case of the Decade

When the R. v. Hape case was released at the Supreme Court of Canada, there was some negative reaction in the legal community, but its real significance did not become apparent until recently. In particular, it has become very significant in the litigation aimed at bringing Omar Khadr to Canada from Guantánamo Bay.

Read the rest of this entry »

Case considered: Boissoin v. Lund, 2009 ABQB 592

PDF version: Court of Queen’s Bench Overturns Panel Decision in Boissoin v. Lund

Justice Earl Wilson of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench recently overturned the Human Rights Panel decision, which found that Mr. Stephen Boissoin and the Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. had, in a letter to the editor of a newspaper published June 17, 2002, expressed comments likely to expose gay persons to hatred and/or contempt due to their sexual orientation. See my earlier ABlawg posts on the Panel decision and the remedy decision.

Read the rest of this entry »

Case considered:  Edmonton Police Service v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2009 ABQB 593

PDF version: Further Developments in the Cassels FOIPPA Matter

Recent developments in the case of Cassels highlight a difficulty faced by many people who request access to information held by public bodies. Since one is hoping to gain access to the desired information, one has to “guess” wisely about what information to ask for, from which department and in which format (e.g., electronic or paper). The agencies from which one requests information are not obligated under the law to create new records from their information, nor to incur great inconvenience and expense in order to provide the requested information. Thus, the wording of the request becomes very important-even in the absence of specific knowledge about what information is available.

Read the rest of this entry »