Economic Development Edmonton v. Wong et al., (2005) 371 A.R. 362 (CA)

• Judge: Hunt, Berger and Costigan, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: June 07, 2005
• Citations: (2005), 371 A.R. 362 (CA);2005 ABCA 278

Economic Dev. Edmonton v. Wong (2005), 371 A.R. 362 (CA);

    354 W.A.C. 362

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] A.R. TBEd. AU.093

Economic Development Edmonton (appellant/applicant) v. Philomena Wong and the Chief Commissioner of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (respondents/respondents)

(0403-0386-AC; 2005 ABCA 278)

Indexed As: Economic Development Edmonton v. Wong et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Hunt, Berger and Costigan, JJ.A.

August 30, 2005.

Summary:

Wong and Baah filed separated discrimination complaints against their common employer with the Human Rights and Citizenship Commission. Investigators recommended that the complaints be dismissed. The Commission dismissed the complaints. Wong and Baah requested a review by the Chief Commissioner. The Chief Commissioner allowed the requests for review and directed that the complaints proceed to the hearing panel stage. The employer applied for judicial review of both decisions.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the applications (see 336 A.R. 280 and [2004] A.R. Uned. 747). The employer appealed both decisions.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals. The following is the appeal respecting Wong. The appeal respecting Baah can be found at [2005] A.R. Uned. 245.

Civil Rights - Topic 7044.1

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Commissions or boards - General - Role of commissioner, chairperson, etc. - Wong filed a discrimination complaint against her employer with the Human Rights and Citizenship Commission - An investigator recommended that the complaint be dismissed - The Commission dismissed the complaint - Wong requested a review by the chief commissioner - The chief commissioner allowed the request for review and directed that the complaint proceed to the hearing panel stage - The employer applied for judicial review - It argued that factual underpinnings of a human rights complaint should be determined by the investigator and not revisited by the chief commissioner - The applications judge dismissed the application - The employer appealed - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The chief commissioner fulfilled a screening role - He did not determine whether a complaint was made out - The chief commissioner was called upon to consider the evidence gathered by the investigator in the context of deciding whether there was a reasonable basis in the evidence for proceeding to the next stage - In this case, he had done so and his decision was reasonable.

Civil Rights - Topic 7115

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Practice - Judicial review (incl. standard of review) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 7044.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

Mis v. Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (Alta.) (2001), 293 A.R. 391; 257 W.A.C. 391; 2001 ABCA 212, refd to. [para. 7].

Ryan v. Law Society of New Brunswick, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 247; 302 N.R. 1; 257 N.B.R.(2d) 207; 674 A.P.R. 207; 2003 SCC 20, refd to. [para. 7].

City of Calgary v. Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission) - see Calgary (City) v. Cabalde.

Calgary (City) v. Cabalde (2003), 320 A.R. 314; 288 W.A.C. 314; 2003 ABCA 39, refd to. [para. 9].

Duffy v. Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (Alta.) (2001), 301 A.R. 236 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 10].

Hamilton v. Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship) - see Hamilton v. Board of Education of Wild Rose School Division No. 66 et al.

Hamilton v. Board of Education of Wild Rose School Division No. 66 et al. (2002), 314 A.R. 340 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 10].

Calgary (City) v. Cabalde (2000), 287 A.R. 249 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 10].

114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société d'arrosage) et al. v. Hudson (Town), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 241; 271 N.R. 201; 2001 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 18].

Pub and Bar Coalition of Ontario v. Ottawa (City) et al., [2001] O.T.C. 670 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 18].

Freitag v. Penetanguishene (Town), [2004] O.J. No. 3600 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 18].

Galway and Cavendish (United Townships) v. Windover (1995), 130 D.L.R.(4th) 710 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 18].

Law Society of Upper Canada v. Barrie (City), [2000] O.T.C. 697; 183 D.L.R.(4th) 757 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 18].

Counsel:

T.W. Wakeling, Q.C., and F. Franceschi, for the appellant/applicant;

J.R. Carpenter, for the respondent, Wong;

A. Dean, for the respondent, Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission.

This appeal was heard on June 7, 2005, by Hunt, Berger and Costigan, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The following reasons for judgment were delivered by Berger, J.A., on August 30, 2005.