Sandringham Place Inc. et al. v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.), (2001) 148 O.A.C. 280 (DC)

• Judge: Maloney, B. Wright and Gillese, JJ.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: June 18, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2001), 148 O.A.C. 280 (DC)

Sandringham Place Inc. v. HRC (2001), 148 O.A.C. 280 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] O.A.C. TBEd. JL.024

Sandringham Place Inc. et al. v. Ontario Human Rights Commission

(Court File No. 682/00)

Indexed As: Sandringham Place Inc. et al. v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.)

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Divisional Court

Maloney, B. Wright and Gillese, JJ.

June 29, 2001.

Summary:

The applicant requested that the Ontario Human Rights Commission exercise its discretion under s. 34(1)(d) of the Ontario Human Rights Code to decide not to deal with certain complaints because of delay in filing the complaints. The Commission decided that because it had completed its investigation, it would be inappropriate for it to exercise its discretion under s. 34(1)(d) to not deal with the complaints at that late date. The Commission referred the complaints to a Board of Inquiry. The applicant applied for judicial review of the Commission's decision not to exercise its discretion under s. 34(1)(d).

The Ontario Divisional Court, B. Wright, J., dissenting in part, quashed the Commission's decision and remitted the matter to be heard by a different member of the Commission. The hearing of the Board of Inquiry was stayed pending the Commission's determination pursuant to s. 34(1).

Administrative Law - Topic 542

The hearing and decision - Decisions of the tribunal - What constitutes a decision - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3203 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2617

Natural justice - Evidence and proof - Disclosure - The applicant requested that the Ontario Human Rights Commission exercise its discretion under s. 34(1)(d) of the Ontario Human Rights Code to decide not to deal with certain complaints because of delay in filing the complaints - The Commission declined to exercise its discretion under s. 34(1)(d) to not deal with the complaints - The Commission had information before it relating to the exercise of its discretion which it did not share with the applicant - The Ontario Divisional Court rejected the Commission's submission that because the applicant knew the substance of the complaints, it had no obligation to disclose the considerations before it in relation to the exercise of its jurisdiction pursuant to s. 34(1) - The applicant had to be given sufficient information so that it had a meaningful opportunity to make submissions in relation to the exercise of discretion pursuant to s. 34(1) - To do otherwise amounted to a breach of the duty of procedural fairness - See paragraphs 18 to 19.

Administrative Law - Topic 3203

Judicial review - General - Matters not subject to review - The applicant requested that the Ontario Human Rights Commission exercise its discretion under s. 34(1)(d) of the Ontario Human Rights Code to decide not to deal with certain complaints because of delay in filing the complaints - The Commission declined to exercise its discretion under s. 34(1)(d) to not deal with the complaints - The applicant applied for judicial review - The Commission argued that the court had no power to review the decision made pursuant to s. 34(1)(d) - The Ontario Divisional Court rejected the notion that the decision was not reviewable - A decision not to do something was a decision - The decision not to deal with a complaint was to be exercised in accordance with the principles that governed the exercise of any statutorily conferred discretion - See paragraphs 11 to 12.

Administrative Law - Topic 3211

Judicial review - General - Review of exercise of statutory power - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3203 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 8264

Administrative powers - Discretionary powers - Fettering of discretion - The applicant requested that the Ontario Human Rights Commission exercise its discretion under s. 34(1)(d) of the Ontario Human Rights Code to decide not to deal with certain complaints because of delay in filing the complaints - The Commission decided that because it had completed its investigation, it would be inappropriate for it to exercise its discretion under s. 34(1)(d) to not deal with the complaints at that late date - The applicant applied for judicial review - The Ontario Divisional Court held that the Commission's decision was patently unreasonable where the Commission failed to consider the relevant considerations set out in s. 34(1)(d) and took into account an irrelevant consideration, namely, the completion of its investigation - That consideration amounted to a fetter on discretion - See paragraphs 13 to 15.

Civil Rights - Topic 7046

Federal or provincial legislation - Commissions or boards - General - Duty of fairness - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2617 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7069.01

Federal or provincial legislation - Commissions or boards - Jurisdiction - Complaints - Delay - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3203 and Administrative Law - Topic 8264 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7069.01

Federal or provincial legislation - Commissions or boards - Jurisdiction - Complaints - Delay - The applicant requested that the Ontario Human Rights Commission exercise its discretion under s. 34(1)(d) of the Ontario Human Rights Code to decide not to deal with certain complaints because of delay in filing the complaints - The Commission declined to exercise its discretion under s. 34(1)(d) to not deal with the complaints - The applicant applied for judicial review - The Commission argued that because the purpose of s. 34(1)(d) was to benefit the Commission by giving it the power to remove meritless complaints, the Commission had the right to decide when and whether to consider the exercise of its discretion pursuant to s. 34(1) - The Ontario Divisional Court rejected the argument - In the absence of words limiting the operation of the section in such a fashion, the Commission had to respond to a legitimate request that it consider the exercise of its discretion pursuant to s. 34(1) - See paragraph 16.

Civil Rights - Topic 7069.01

Federal or provincial legislation - Commissions or boards - Jurisdiction - Complaints - Delay - The Ontario Human Rights Commission decided not to exercise its discretion under s. 34(1)(d) of the Human Rights Code to not deal with certain complaints - The Ontario Divisional Court quashed the decision, remitted the matter to be heard by a different member of the Commission, and stayed a hearing before a Board of Inquiry pending the Commission's determination - The applicant had argued that the six year delay since the facts that gave rise to the complaints constituted an abuse of process that warranted the quashing of the Board of Inquiry hearing - However, the court rejected that argument where: (1) no breach had been argued in relation to the decision to order a Board of Inquiry hearing; (2) any delay in the process was attributable to the Commission and it would be unfair to affect the complainants' rights without notice and an opportunity for them to be heard; (3) the Commission had not yet considered the question of delay; and (4) delay, absent evidence of prejudice, was not sufficient to warrant quashing the Board of Inquiry hearing - See paragraphs 20 to 22.

Civil Rights - Topic 7115

Federal or provincial legislation - Practice - Judicial review - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3203 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7186

Federal or provincial legislation - Remedies - Judicial review - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3203 ].

Cases Noticed:

Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, refd to. [para. 15].

Hancock v. Shreve et al. (1992), 62 O.A.C. 81; 21 C.H.R.R. D/146 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 29].

Statutes Noticed:

Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H-19, sect. 34(1)(d) [para. 8].

Counsel:

Paul H. Starkman, for the applicant;

Naomi Overend, for the respondent.

This application was heard on June 18, 2001, before Maloney, B. Wright and Gillese, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court. The following endorsement was delivered by the court on June 29, 2001, including the following opinions:

Gillese, J. (Maloney, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 23;

B. Wright, J., dissenting in part - see paragraphs 24 to 32.