Ismail et al. v. Human Rights Tribunal (B.C.) et al., [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1079 (SC)

JurisdictionBritish Columbia
JudgeSigurdson, J.
CourtSupreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
Subject MatterADMINISTRATIVE LAW,CRIMINAL LAW,CIVIL RIGHTS
Citation[2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1079 (SC),[2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1079,2013 BCSC 1079
Date19 June 2013
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
6 practice notes
  • Ward v. Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse), 2021 SCC 43
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • October 29, 2021
    ...(Attorney General), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 877 ; Groia v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2018 SCC 27 , [2018] 1 S.C.R. 772 ; Pardy v. Earle, 2013 BCSC 1079, 52 B.C.L.R. (5th) 295 ; Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130 ; Campbell v . MGN Ltd., [2004] UKHL 22 , [2004]......
  • Ktunaxa Nation Council et al. v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations) et al., 2014 BCSC 568
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • April 3, 2014
    ...exceptions under which extrinsic evidence is admissible. For example, see Ismail v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal) , 2013 BCSC 1079 (CanLII), at para. 17. [144] The petitioner's reliance on Ismail for this proposition is misplaced. Ismail is a challenge to the constitutionality of......
  • Kalo v Winnipeg (City of), 2019 MBCA 46
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
    • April 29, 2019
    ...admissible (see Lockridge v Director, Ministry of the Environment, 2012 ONSC 2316; and Ismail v British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2013 BCSC 1079). [33] In this case, for example, background information as to the situation in other jurisdictions may be permitted where it would provid......
  • C.S. v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2017 BCSC 1268
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • July 21, 2017
    ...at paras. 30-33. [Underlining added.] [71] After citing paragraph 17 of Kinexus in Ismail v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2013 BCSC 1079 at para. 41, Mr. Justice Sigurdson summarily rejected the petitioner’s submission of new evidence on judicial review pertaining to the merits......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Ward v. Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse), 2021 SCC 43
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • October 29, 2021
    ...(Attorney General), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 877 ; Groia v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2018 SCC 27 , [2018] 1 S.C.R. 772 ; Pardy v. Earle, 2013 BCSC 1079, 52 B.C.L.R. (5th) 295 ; Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130 ; Campbell v . MGN Ltd., [2004] UKHL 22 , [2004]......
  • Ktunaxa Nation Council et al. v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations) et al., 2014 BCSC 568
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • April 3, 2014
    ...exceptions under which extrinsic evidence is admissible. For example, see Ismail v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal) , 2013 BCSC 1079 (CanLII), at para. 17. [144] The petitioner's reliance on Ismail for this proposition is misplaced. Ismail is a challenge to the constitutionality of......
  • Kalo v Winnipeg (City of), 2019 MBCA 46
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
    • April 29, 2019
    ...admissible (see Lockridge v Director, Ministry of the Environment, 2012 ONSC 2316; and Ismail v British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2013 BCSC 1079). [33] In this case, for example, background information as to the situation in other jurisdictions may be permitted where it would provid......
  • C.S. v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2017 BCSC 1268
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • July 21, 2017
    ...at paras. 30-33. [Underlining added.] [71] After citing paragraph 17 of Kinexus in Ismail v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), 2013 BCSC 1079 at para. 41, Mr. Justice Sigurdson summarily rejected the petitioner’s submission of new evidence on judicial review pertaining to the merits......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT