Collins v. Abrams et al., 2004 BCCA 96

• Judge: Finch, C.J.B.C., Lambert and Hollinrake, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: February 13, 2004
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2004 BCCA 96;(2004), 195 B.C.A.C. 47 (CA)

Collins v. Abrams (2004), 195 B.C.A.C. 47 (CA);

    319 W.A.C. 47

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MR.036

Doug Collins (appellant/petitioner) v. Harry Abrams, British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, Deputy Chief Commissioner of the British Columbia Human Rights Commission and Attorney General of British Columbia (respondents/respondents)

(CA030510; 2004 BCCA 96)

Indexed As: Collins v. Abrams et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Finch, C.J.B.C., Lambert and Hollinrake, JJ.A.

February 13, 2004.

Summary:

Abrams filed a complaint of discrimi­nation against Collins and the North Shore News. Prior to the hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal, Collins sought and obtained a severance of the issues related to, inter alia, the constitu­tionality of s. 7(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code from the issue of the viol­ation simpliciter. The Tribunal upheld Abrams' complaint, finding that both Collins and the North Shore News viol­ated s. 7(1)(b) of the Code. The Tribunal ordered compen­sation to be paid to Ab­rams and publication of a summary of the Tribunal's decision, and made a cease and desist order. The North Shore News complied with the orders against it. Collins applied for a stay of the order pending determination of the constitu­tional issues. The Tribunal ordered a stay of the monetary part of the order. Collins petitioned for judicial review of the Tribunal's deci­sion. The Attorney Gen­eral also sought an order remitting the remainder of the judicial review applica­tion to the Tribunal.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported in 25 B.C.T.C. 302, held that since the Tribunal had not considered the constitutional and other issues before making the order, it was therefore not a final order and Collins' judicial review application was premature. The question as to whether the judicial review application disclosed a reasonable claim regarding the validity of the Tribunal's order was adjourned and the constitutional and other remaining issues were remitted to the Tribunal. Collins appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a decision reported in 149 B.C.A.C. 184; 244 W.A.C. 184, dismissed the appeal.

Collins subsequently died. The Attorney General applied for an order dismissing Collins' application for judicial review on the ground that the matter was now moot. Coll­ins' widow, who inherited copy­right to the impugned articles, sought to continue the constitutional challenge.

The Tribunal ruled that the constitutional issues were not moot. It ruled that Collins' right to freedom of expression in s. 2(b) of the Charter was infringed, but that infringe­ment was justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2002] B.C.T.C. 1774, allowed the Attorney General's application to dismiss the judicial review proceedings. Collins' widow appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 8583

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Who may raise Charter issues (incl. standing) - Collins wrote newspaper articles which prompted a complaint of discrimination - The complaint was upheld; remedies against Collins included a com­pensation order and a cease and desist order - Collins' allegation that sec­tions of the Human Rights Code violated his Char­ter right to freedom of expression was rejected by the Human Rights Tribu­nal - Collins died - The British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed that although Collins' widow inherited the intellectual property in the articles, she lacked the public interest standing necessary to pro­ceed with the constitutional challenge - The issue was now moot - See paragraphs 1 to 21.

Courts - Topic 2286

Jurisdiction - Bars - Academic matters or moot issues - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8583 ].

Practice - Topic 221

Persons who can sue and be sued - Indi­viduals and corporations - Status or stand­ing - Public interest standing (incl. re­quire­ments of) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8583 ].

Counsel:

D.H. Christie, for the appellant;

L. Mrozinski, for the respondent, Attorney General of British Columbia.

This appeal was heard before Finch, C.J.B.C., Lambert and Hollinrake, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, at Vancouver, British Columbia, on February 13, 2004, when the following decision was delivered orally for the court by Finch, C.J.B.C.