Hancock v. Shreve et al., (1992) 62 O.A.C. 81 (DC)

• Judge: Hartt, Southey and White, JJ.
• Case Date: November 10, 1992
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1992), 62 O.A.C. 81 (DC)

Hancock v. Shreve (1992), 62 O.A.C. 81 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Jeremy Hancock (applicant) v. Alan Shreve, The Ontario Human Rights Commission, The Minister of Citizenship for Ontario, The Corporation of the City of Windsor and Professor Robert Kerr (Board of Inquiry) (respondents)

(No. 305/92)

Indexed As: Hancock v. Shreve et al.

Ontario Divisional Court

Hartt, Southey and White, JJ.

November 10, 1992.

Summary:

Allegations of racial discrimination were made against Hancock and the City of Windsor. Five years passed before the Ontario Human Rights Commission requested the Minister to appoint a board of inquiry. Hancock and the city applied to have the proceeding stayed on the ground of delay and for failure to disclose information.

The Ontario Divisional Court declined to grant the stay on the ground that the appli­cation was premature.

Civil Rights - Topic 3191

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Administrative and noncriminal proceedings - Delay - In 1991, the Ontario Human Rights Commis­sion requested the Minister to appoint a board of inquiry - The incidents giving rise to the alleged racial discrimination happened in 1985 and 1986 - The com­plaint was made in 1986 - Hancock and the City of Windsor (the defendants) applied to have the proceeding stayed on the ground, inter alia, of the five year delay in requesting the inquiry - There would be a six year delay between the date of the offences and the date of the hearing - The Ontario Divisional Court held that the application for the stay on the ground of delay was premature - See paragraphs 1 to 6.

Cases Noticed:

Latif v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.) (1992), 55 O.A.C. 204 (Div. Ct.), folld. [para. 3].

Ressel v. Board of Directors of Chiropractic (Ont.) (1990), 41 O.A.C. 321 (Div. Ct.), consd. [para. 3].

Krakowski v. R. (1983), 4 C.C.C.(3d) 188 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Gage v. Ontario (Attorney General) (1992), 55 O.A.C. 47; 90 D.L.R.(4th) 537 (Div. Ct.), dist. [para. 7].

Statutes Noticed:

Human Rights Code, sect. 42 [para. 6].

Counsel:

L.P. Kavanaugh and A.M.N. Vannelli, for applicant Hancock;

P.T. Brode, for applicant City of Windsor;

Mark Hart, for respondent Ontario Human Rights Commission;

A.L. Lyon, for the Attorney General;

M.D. Lepofsky, for intervener Ontario.

This application was heard on November 9 and 10, 1992, before Hartt, Southey and White, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court. The following judgment was endorsed on the record by Southey, J., on November 10, 1992.