Alberta Report et al. v. Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (Alta.) et al., 2002 ABQB 1081

• Judge: Clark, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: October 25, 2002
• Citations: 2002 ABQB 1081;(2002), 333 A.R. 186 (QB)

Alta. Report v. HRC (2002), 333 A.R. 186 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. JA.089

In The Matter Of The Human Rights Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A. 1980, C. H-11.7, As Amended;

And In The Matter Of a Complaint Before The Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission Complaint No. S9805008;

And In The Matter Of the Decision and Order of The Human Rights Panel Dated April 30, 2002, in Regards to Complaint No. S9805008

Alberta Report, Link Byfield and Michael Byfield (applicants) v. Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission, Harvey Kane, and The Jewish Defence League of Canada (respondents)

(Action No. 0201-09096; 2002 ABQB 1081)

Indexed As: Alberta Report et al. v. Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (Alta.) et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Clark, J.

December 10, 2002.

Summary:

Appellants appealed from a decision of the Alberta Human Rights Panel made pursuant to s. 33 of the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act. At issue was whether the panel erred in taking notice of expert evidence that had been introduced before a British Columbia tribunal and whether the panel violated the appellant's right to know the case to be met.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the panel for rehearing. The panel did not err in using the evidence, but erred in not informing the parties of its intention to take notice of the evidence.

Administrative Law - Topic 629

The hearing and decision - Evidence and proof - Expert evidence - In determining a complaint of discrimination, an Alberta Human Rights Panel took notice of expert evidence that had been introduced before a British Columbia tribunal and had been quoted in cases provided to the Panel - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the Panel did not err in using the expert evidence, but erred in not informing the parties of its intention to take notice of it - To require expert evidence in each case to prove how a certain group suffered discrimination would defeat the legislation's purpose - Citation of the evidence in cases provided to the parties was not sufficient notice of the Panel's intention to rely on the evidence - Case law was presumptively submitted to speak to points of law or to draw analogies - Here, it was not submitted as evidence - The panel should have informed all parties of its intention to take notice of the evidence, either during or after the hearing, and allowed the parties to (1) address admissibility; (2) challenge the weight to be accorded to it; and (3) submit other evidence in rebuttal - See paragraphs 27 to 31.

Administrative Law - Topic 2405

Natural justice - Procedure - General - Notice of subject matter to be considered -[See Administrative Law - Topic 629 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2609

Natural justice - Evidence and proof - Reliance on evidence not adduced by parties - [See Administrative Law - Topic 629 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2618

Natural justice - Evidence and proof - Judicial notice - [See Administrative Law - Topic 629 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7046

Federal or provincial legislation - Commissions or boards - General - Duty of fairness - [See Administrative Law - Topic 629 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7110

Federal or provincial legislation - Practice - Evidence and proof - [See Administrative Law - Topic 629 ].

Cases Noticed:

Canadian Jewish Congress v. North Shore Free Press Ltd. (No. 7), (1997), 30 C.H.R.R. D/5 (B.C.H.R.T.), refd to. [para. 9].

Abrams v. North Shore Free Press Ltd. (No. 3) (1999), 33 C.H.R.R. D/435 (B.C.H.R.T.), refd to. [para. 9].

Kane v. Board of Governors of the University of British Columbia, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1105; 31 N.R. 214, refd to. [para. 15].

Cherkewich v. Cherkewich (2001), 292 A.R. 281 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Williams (V.D.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1128; 226 N.R. 162; 107 B.C.A.C. 1; 174 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Whittaker (V.G.) (2001), 301 A.R. 136 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 23].

Levesque v. Levesque, [1994] 8 W.W.R. 859; 155 A.R. 26; 73 W.A.C. 26; 4 R.F.L.(4th) 375 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Jones, D.P. and de Villars, A.S., Principles of Administrative Law (3rd Ed. 1999), pp. 260 [para. 15]; 278 [para. 26].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, A.W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), p. 1055 [para. 20].

Counsel:

Dan Scott (Matheson & Company LLP), for the appellants, Alberta Report, Link Byfield and Michael Byfield;

Janice R. Ashcroft, for the respondent, Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission;

Greg Rodin (Rodin Law Firm), for the respondents, Harvey Kane and The Jewish Defence League of Canada.

Clark, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, heard this appeal on October 25, 2002, and delivered the following reasons for judgment on December 10, 2002.