Al-Ghamdi v. Peace Country Health Region et al., 2015 ABQB 155

• Judge: Topolniski, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: February 27, 2015
• Citations: 2015 ABQB 155;(2015), 610 A.R. 330 (QB)

Al-Ghamdi v. Peace Country Health Region (2015), 610 A.R. 330 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. MR.099

Dr. Mohammed Al-Ghamdi (applicant) v. Peace Country Health Region and the Chief of the Commissioner & Tribunals of the Alberta Human Rights Commission (respondents)

(1303 07368; 2015 ABQB 155)

Indexed As: Al-Ghamdi v. Peace Country Health Region et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Topolniski, J.

March 5, 2015.

Summary:

The Chief and Commission of Tribunals (Chief Commissioner) of the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) dismissed Dr. Al-Ghamdi's complaint of alleged discrimination by the Peace Country Health Region. Dr. Al-Ghamdi applied for judicial review. He argued that the process was unfair, there was a reasonable apprehension of bias concerning the Chief Commissioner and others connected to the AHRC, and the decision was unreasonable.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 262

The hearing and decision - Right to a hearing - When right exists - [See Civil Rights - Topic 7115 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2088

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal (considerations incl. bias) - Bias - Apprehension of - The Chief and Commission of Tribunals (Chief Commissioner) of the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) dismissed Dr. Al-Ghamdi's complaint of alleged discrimination by the Peace Country Health Region - Dr. Al-Ghamdi applied for judicial review - He argued that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias concerning the Chief Commissioner and others connected to the AHRC - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argument - Alberta authority established that members of the AHRC had sufficient administrative control, security of tenure and security of remuneration to establish their independence - An informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically would think the Chief Commissioner was able to reach the decision fairly - Merely because the Chief Commissioner was appointed by the government, without more, was not evidence of a reasonable apprehension of bias nor would an informed person view it as such - Further, reporting to the Minister without more did not give rise to a perception of bias of the Chief Commissioner - See paragraphs 55 to 62.

Civil Rights - Topic 7046

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Commissions or boards - General - Duty of fairness - The Chief and Commission of Tribunals (Chief Commissioner) of the Alberta Human Rights Commission dismissed Dr. Al-Ghamdi's complaint of alleged discrimination by the Peace Country Health Region - Dr. Al-Ghamdi applied for judicial review, arguing that the process was unfair - Dr. Al-Ghamdi's complaints focused on the investigation - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the Investigator's choice not to interview certain witnesses proposed by Dr. Al-Ghamdi did not render the process unfair - That she did not interview every potential witness, did not lead to the conclusion that she failed to consider crucial evidence - In any event, had the court found any procedural unfairness at the investigation stage, the opportunity for Dr. Al-Ghamdi to fill any gaps he perceived in the Investigator's report would have cured such deficiency - See paragraphs 63 to 72.

Civil Rights - Topic 7046

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Commissions or boards - General - Duty of fairness - The Chief and Commission of Tribunals (Chief Commissioner) of the Alberta Human Rights Commission dismissed Dr. Al-Ghamdi's complaint of alleged discrimination by the Peace Country Health Region - Dr. Al-Ghamdi applied for judicial review, arguing that the process was unfair - Dr. Al-Ghamdi's complaints focused on the investigation - Dr. Al-Ghamdi argued that the Investigator's failure to interview certain witnesses proposed by him constituted breach of an implied representation and resulting unfairness - He contended that the implied representation arose when the Investigator wrote the names and contact information for certain witnesses - He also argued that had he known the Investigator would not contact them, he could have done so himself - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "Writing names and contact information of proposed witnesses is not a clear, unambiguous and unqualified assurance that the individuals would, in fact, be interviewed by the Investigator. There was no breach of a representation that could lead to procedural unfairness. Dr. Al-Ghamdi's contention that the problem was compounded since he would have contacted the witnesses does not withstand scrutiny. Again, he had the Report. He knew that he could provide further information and submissions for the Chief Commissioner's consideration as evidenced by the Additional Submissions. Whether he would follow-up with these individuals as part of that additional information package was his choice. He chose not to. I fail to see how that can result in an unfair process" - See paragraphs 74 to 78.

Civil Rights - Topic 7114

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Practice - Investigation of complaint (incl. report) - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 7046 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7115

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Practice - Judicial review (incl. standard of review) - The Chief and Commission of Tribunals (Chief Commissioner) of the Alberta Human Rights Commission dismissed Dr.Al-Ghamdi's complaint of alleged discrimination by the Peace Country Health Region - The Chief Commissioner found that there was no reasonable basis to refer the Complaint to a hearing - He found that the "overwhelming information" was that Dr. Al-Ghamdi's conflicts with other doctors and medical staff were the result of personality conflicts, which were outside of the scope of the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act - Dr. Al-Ghamdi applied for judicial review - Dr. Al-Ghamdi asserted that the Investigator's finding of personality conflict was her way of recognizing discrimination, but opting to call it something else - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - The record showed that the Investigator considered if certain events were the result of either personality conflict or discrimination, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to say it related to a prohibited ground of discrimination - Dr. Al-Ghamdi's complaint that the Chief Commissioner characterized conduct as personality conflicts without holding a hearing implied that there ought to have been a hearing to determine the question - The law did not support that contention - The Chief Commissioner's decision met the standard of reasonableness - See paragraphs 39 to 54.

Cases Noticed:

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 25].

Brewer v. Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP et al. (2008), 446 A.R. 76; 442 W.A.C. 76; 2008 ABCA 435, refd to. [para. 26].

Gramaglia v. Alberta (Minister of Government Services) et al. (2007), 404 A.R. 233; 394 W.A.C. 233; 2007 ABCA 93, refd to. [para. 26].

Callan v. Suncor Inc. et al. (2006), 380 A.R. 247; 363 W.A.C. 247; 2006 ABCA 15, refd to. [para. 26].

Greater St. Albert Roman Catholic Separate School District No. 734 v. Buterman (2014), 570 A.R. 39; 2014 ABQB 14, refd to. [para. 26].

Silverman v. Human Rights Commission (Alta.) et al., [2012] A.R. Uned. 216; 2012 ABQB 152, refd to. [para. 26].

St. Albert and Area Student Health Initiative Partnership v. Polczer et al. (2007), 447 A.R. 27; 2007 ABQB 692, refd to. [para. 26].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 33].

Chartrand v. Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (Alta.) et al. (2008), 444 A.R. 43; 2008 ABQB 207, refd to. [para. 33].

Mis v. Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (Alta.) (2001), 293 A.R. 391; 257 W.A.C. 391; 2001 ABCA 212, refd to. [para. 39].

Economic Development Edmonton v. Wong et al. (2005), 371 A.R. 362; 354 W.A.C. 362; 2005 ABCA 278, refd to. [para. 39].

Economic Development Edmonton v. Baah et al., [2005] A.R. Uned. 245; 2005 ABCA 279, refd to. [para. 39].

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. 40].

Syndicat des employés de production du Québec et de l'Acadie v. Commission canadienne des droits de la personne et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 879; 100 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 50].

Pelech v. Law Enforcement Review Board (Alta.) et al. (2010), 493 A.R. 335; 502 W.A.C. 335; 2010 ABCA 400, refd to. [para. 53].

Committee for Justice and Liberty Foundation et al. v. National Energy Board et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369; 9 N.R. 115, refd to. [para. 56].

Canada Safeway Ltd. v. Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (Alta.) et al. (2000), 280 A.R. 68; 2000 ABQB 897, affd. (2003), 330 A.R. 340; 299 W.A.C. 340; 2003 ABCA 246, refd to. [para. 57].

El-Helou v. Courts Administration Service et al. (2012), 418 F.T.R. 216; 2012 FC 1111, dist. [para. 63].

Lethbridge (City) et al. v. Daisley et al. (2000), 250 A.R. 365; 213 W.A.C. 365; 2000 ABCA 79, leave to appeal refused (2000), 268 N.R. 200; 293 A.R. 189; 257 W.A.C. 189 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 64].

Slattery v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, [1994] 2 F.C. 574; 73 F.T.R. 161 (T.D.), affd. (1996), 205 N.R. 383 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

Hamilton v. Board of Education of Wild Rose School Division No. 66 et al. (2002), 314 A.R. 340; 2002 ABQB 428, refd to. [para. 66].

Murray v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, [2002] F.T.R. Uned. 489; 2002 FCT 699, affd. [2003] N.R. Uned. 96; 2003 FCA 222, refd to. [para. 66].

Aziz v. Telesat Canada (1995), 103 F.T.R. 223 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 66].

Miller v. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al. (1996), 112 F.T.R. 195 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 66].

Bourgeois v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (2000), 96 A.C.W.S.(3d) 450 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 66].

Counsel:

Dr. Mohammed Al-Ghamdi, self-represented;

Brent F. Windwick, Q.C., and Lily Nguyen (Field LLP), for Peace Country Health Region;

Janice R Ashcroft, Q.C., for Alberta Human Rights Commission.

This application was heard on February 27, 2015, before Topolniski, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on March 5, 2015.