D.K.A. v. Human Rights Commission (Yukon), 2012 YKCA 5

• Jurisdiction: Yukon
• Judge: Tysoe, Groberman and Hinkson, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2012 YKCA 5
• Date: 04 June 2012
• Subject Matter: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW,PRACTICE
• Court: Court of Appeal (Yukon Territory)

D.K.A. v. HRC (2012), 324 B.C.A.C. 112 (YukCA);

    551 W.A.C. 112

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] B.C.A.C. TBEd. AU.015

D.K.A. (appellant/plaintiff) v. Yukon Human Rights Commission (respondent/defendant)

(CA10-YU670; 2012 YKCA 5)

Indexed As: D.K.A. v. Human Rights Commission (Yukon)

Yukon Court of Appeal

Tysoe, Groberman and Hinkson, JJ.A.

June 4, 2012.

Summary:

The plaintiff's employer was under contract with the City of Whitehorse to clean the Canada Games Centre. The Acting Associate Manager of Indoor Facilities at the Games Centre received a complaint that the plaintiff had treated patrons of the Games Centre in a disrespectful and threatening fashion. As a result, the employer reassigned the plaintiff to another work location. The plaintiff filed a complaint against the employer with the Human Rights Commission. The Commission dismissed the plaintiff's complaint. The plaintiff commenced action against the Human Rights Commission alleging discrimination. The Commission applied for an order striking the statement of claim.

The Yukon Territory Supreme Court struck the statement of claim. The plaintiff appealed. The Commission applied for an order that the appeal be dismissed as being entirely devoid of merit or substance as to constitute an abuse of process.

The Yukon Court of Appeal allowed the application and dismissed the appeal.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Editor's Note: for cases dealing with the plaintiff's action against the Acting Associate Manager, see [2010] Yukon Cases Uned. (S.C.) 63, affd. (2011), 309 B.C.A.C. 277; 523 W.A.C. 277 (Yuk. C.A.).

Administrative Law - Topic 574

The hearing and decision - Decisions of the tribunal - Collateral attack - [See Practice - Topic 8865 ].

Practice - Topic 8865

Appeals - Quashing or dismissal of appeals - Abuse of process - The plaintiff's employer was under contract with the City of Whitehorse to clean the Canada Games Centre - The Acting Associate Manager of Indoor Facilities at the Games Centre received a complaint that the plaintiff had treated patrons of the Games Centre in a disrespectful and threatening fashion - As a result, the employer reassigned the plaintiff to another work location - The plaintiff filed a complaint against the employer with the Human Rights Commission - The Commission dismissed the plaintiff's complaint - The plaintiff commenced action against the Human Rights Commission alleging discrimination - The trial judge struck the statement of claim - The plaintiff appealed - The Commission applied for an order that the appeal be dismissed as being entirely devoid of merit or substance as to constitute an abuse of process - The Yukon Court of Appeal allowed the application and dismissed the appeal - The trial judge was correct that the only procedure open to the plaintiff with respect to his dissatisfaction with the Commission's dismissal of his claims was to file a claim with the Commission, and then, if necessary, after exhausting his remedy at that tribunal, to appeal to the Supreme Court by filing a notice of appeal with the court within 30 days after the order was pronounced, in accordance with s. 28 of the Yukon Human Rights Act - Such steps were necessary because in Canada there was no cause of action for a tort of discrimination - Further, it was an abuse of court process to use a civil action to collaterally challenge decisions of an administrative tribunal that were otherwise subject to a statutory right of appeal or review.

Cases Noticed:

Wiens et al. v. Campbell et al. (1993), 21 B.C.A.C. 206; 37 W.A.C. 206; 74 B.C.L.R.(2d) 154 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Wiens v. Vancouver (City) - see Wiens et al. v. Campbell et al.

Stephen v. British Columbia et al., [2008] B.C.T.C. Uned. E86; 2008 BCSC 1656, refd to. [para. 12].

Bhadauria v. Seneca College, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 181; 37 N.R. 455, refd to. [para. 16].

Haje v. College of Teachers (B.C.) et al. (1997), 95 B.C.A.C. 266; 154 W.A.C. 266 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Counsel:

The appellant appeared in person;

C. Harrington, for the respondent.

This application was heard at Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, on June 4, 2012, by Tysoe, Groberman and Hinkson, JJ.A., of the Yukon Court of Appeal. The following oral reasons for judgment of the Court of Appeal were delivered by Hinkson, J.A., on the same date.