Please join us in thanking McInnes Cooper’s David Fraser and six complainants for their commitment to equal access to justice for all. On March 28, 2017, the N.S. Supreme Court in granted David’s pro bono judicial review challenging the N.S. Human Rights Commission’s authority to refuse to accept and process a complaint of discrimination in Reed v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission.
Says David, “This decision is about getting in the Human Rights Commission’s door; these complainants just want to be heard, and they have that right to be heard without that door being slammed in their faces”.
The particular human rights complaint stems from the Province’s application of its policies. David’s clients assert that when restaurants seek a new permit to for a summer patio, they should be required to bring their facilities into compliance with the current codes, including wheelchair accessible washroom facilities. However, the complainants allege provincial building inspectors consistently waive this requirement – and that amounts to systemic discrimination against disabled people by the Province.
When the Commission received the clients’ complaint last summer, it refused to even accept it – twice – let alone consider it, saying it relates to how a government department failed to enforce its regulations. The first time, the Commission referred the complainants to the Ombudsman; the second time, it recommended they complain about the individual restaurants. The complainants, represented by David, applied to have the N.S. Supreme Court review the Commission’s refusal to accept the complaint.
“The complaints were not about the individual establishments who have unwittingly been the beneficiaries of this apparently systemic discrimination, but about the systemic discrimination itself,” wrote David in his submission to the Court.
Paul Vienneau, an applicant who uses a wheelchair, said it’s important for him to be able to wash his hands before eating at a restaurant.
“I carry an unnamed hand cleaner with me constantly, which is not a legit answer to this problem,” Vienneau told Global News.
Deciding in the complainants’ favour, the Court was clear: the N.S. Human Rights Act does not give the Commission the discretion to allow the Commission to refuse to accept a complaint it receives. It is mandatory that the Commission inquire into complaints made to it; only then does it have discretion to dismiss the complaint on the limited grounds in the Act. Justice Edwards was “not impressed” with the Commission’s argument that it has insufficient capacity to treat every “inquiry” as a complaint: “[the complainant] was not simply making an ‘inquiry’, he was lodging a complaint. As such, he had the right to expect that his complaint would be ‘inquired into’. It is simply not an option for the intake worker to decide not to accept a complaint… A complaint alleging discrimination has been filed. The HRC is obliged to deal with it”.
The Court ordered the Commission to process the complaint. The Human Rights Commission has said it will appeal the decision, though it has not yet filed that appeal.
Media Links:
Jan 18, 2023
Regulatory bodies across Canada are finding themselves subject to increased scrutiny in light of concerns surrounding workforce shortages,…
Nov 8, 2022
The October 3, 2022, decision of the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal to dismiss the decision of the Newfoundland and Labrador Pharmacy…
Jul 18, 2022
The Supreme Court of Canada’s “Jordan” framework, introducing strict timelines for determining unreasonable delay in the context of…
Jul 28, 2017
All stakeholders in any major project development already know that adequate consultation before - rather than after - a project is approved is…
Apr 20, 2017
On April 13, 2017, Canada’s federal government introduced legislation that, if passed into law, will legalize recreational cannabis in Canada.…
Sep 12, 2016
On September 9, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada decided in Musqueam Indian Band v. Musqueam Indian Band (Board of Review) that an Indian band…
Jul 5, 2016
The Ontario Court of Appeal has re-ignited the discussion about when a municipality will be held liable for its shoddy bylaw enforcement…
Jun 17, 2016
In its June 16, 2016 decision in Rogers Communications Inc. v. Châteauguay (City), the Supreme Court of Canada decided a municipality’s…
Jun 10, 2016
Administrative monetary penalties, or “AMPs”, are a new phenomenon in the Canadian offshore. AMPs were introduced to the Newfoundland &…
Apr 19, 2016
On April 14, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that Métis and “non-status Indians” are “Indians” under section 91(24) of the…
Jul 17, 2015
On the heels of National Aboriginal Day, we pause to take a look back at two significant Aboriginal law cases decided in the last year, how…
Jul 10, 2015
On April 15, 2015, British Columbia’s Court of Appeal confirmed that First Nations can make certain legal claims grounded in Aboriginal rights…
Apr 15, 2015
On April 15, 2015 the Supreme Court of Canada decided the City of Saguenay’s recitation of a religious - though non-denominational – prayer…
Feb 2, 2015
On January 30, 2015 the Supreme Court of Canada decided that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom’s protection for freedom of…
Jul 2, 2013
On June 14, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 30 v. Irving Pulp…
Mar 15, 2013
Recent developments in Ontario and Yukon are an important reminder of the practical implications of the Crown’s legal Duty to Consult with…
Subscribe to McInnes Cooper to stay current with our leading insights on legal updates, trends, news, events, and services.