University of Saskatchewan et al. v. Human Rights Commission (Sask.), 2015 SKCA 91

• Judge: Richards, C.J.S., Caldwell and Herauf, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: January 29, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2015 SKCA 91;(2015), 465 Sask.R. 161 (CA)

Sask. Univ. v. HRC (2015), 465 Sask.R. 161 (CA);

    649 W.A.C. 161

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. SE.005

Claude Hebron (appellant/respondent) v. University of Saskatchewan and Dr. Bruce Grahn (respondents/applicants) and Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (respondent/respondent)

(CACV2591; 2015 SKCA 91)

Indexed As: University of Saskatchewan et al. v. Human Rights Commission (Sask.)

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Richards, C.J.S., Caldwell and Herauf, JJ.A.

August 25, 2015.

Summary:

Hebron was required to discontinue his studies in a veterinary medicine program. He appealed to the University Council's Appeal Board, alleging that a failure to accommodate his learning disability had resulted in his failing grades. He also filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission. The Appeal Board denied Hebron's appeal. The University and the Dean (the applicants) asked the Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission to dismiss Hebron's complaint under s. 27.1(2)(d) of the Human Rights Code on the basis that its substance had been appropriately dealt with. The Chief Commissioner refused to dismiss the complaint. The applicants sought judicial review.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at (2014), 453 Sask.R. 138, allowed the application. The Chief Commissioner's decision was quashed and the Commission was prohibited from entertaining the complaint. Hebron appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 3202

Judicial review - General - Scope or standard of review - Hebron was required to discontinue his studies in a veterinary medicine program - He appealed to the University Council's Appeal Board, alleging that a failure to accommodate his learning disability had resulted in his failing grades - He also filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission - The Appeal Board denied Hebron's appeal - The University and the Dean (the applicants) asked the Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission to dismiss Hebron's complaint under s. 27.1(2)(d) of the Human Rights Code on the basis that its substance had been appropriately dealt with under another Act or proceedings - The Chief Commissioner refused to dismiss the complaint - The applicants sought judicial review - Danyliuk, J., held that the standard of correctness applied to the Chief Commissioner's determination regarding whether there was concurrent jurisdiction between the University and the Commission on the issue of accommodating Hebron - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal agreed, stating, "where ... a tribunal is asked to determine whether the matter before it rests exclusively with it, with a superior court or with another specialised tribunal, or whether there exists concurrent jurisdiction, it is plain that the tribunal's answer to that question is reviewable by a superior court on the standard of correctness." - See paragraphs 44 to 47.

Civil Rights - Topic 7066

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Commissions or boards - Jurisdiction - Res judicata - [See third Civil Rights - Topic 7070.1 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7070.1

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Commissions or boards - Jurisdiction - Complaints - Bars - Hebron was required to discontinue his studies in a veterinary medicine program - He appealed to the University Council's Appeal Board, alleging that a failure to accommodate his learning disability had resulted in his failing grades - He also filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission - The Appeal Board denied Hebron's appeal - The University and the Dean asked the Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission to dismiss Hebron's complaint under s. 27.1(2)(d) of the Human Rights Code on the basis that its substance had been appropriately dealt with - The Chief Commissioner refused to dismiss the complaint - Danyliuk, J., quashed the decision, finding that the Chief Commissioner had erred in concluding that the Commission and the Appeal Board did not enjoy concurrent jurisdiction over the complaint - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed Hebron's appeal - The Commission and the Appeal Board had concurrent jurisdiction - The Commission did not hold exclusive jurisdiction over matters of human rights - Section 61 of the University of Saskatchewan Act enabled the Appeal Board to examine and rule on matters of general law when they arose in an appeal properly brought before it - Further, a decision of the Appeal Board was subject to judicial review as were decisions of the Commission - Danyliuk, J., had not erred - See paragraphs 48 to 56.

Civil Rights - Topic 7070.1

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Commissions or boards - Jurisdiction - Complaints - Bars - Hebron was required to discontinue his studies in a veterinary medicine program - He appealed to the University Council's Appeal Board, alleging that a failure to accommodate his learning disability had resulted in his failing grades - He also filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission - The Appeal Board denied Hebron's appeal - The University and the Dean asked the Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission to dismiss Hebron's complaint under s. 27.1(2)(d) of the Human Rights Code on the basis that its substance had been appropriately dealt with - The Chief Commissioner refused to dismiss the complaint - Danyliuk, J., quashed the decision, finding that the Chief Commissioner had erred in concluding that the issues before the Appeal Board and the Commission were not substantially similar - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed Hebron's appeal - Not one single fact or factor was different as between Hebron's complaint and his Appeal Board appeal - Neither relied on a law or principle not relied on in the other - In reaching his conclusion that the complaints were not "essentially the same", the Chief Commissioner had relied on factors extraneous to the subject matter of the complaints - See paragraphs 57 to 67.

Civil Rights - Topic 7070.1

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Commissions or boards - Jurisdiction - Complaints - Bars - Hebron was required to discontinue his studies in a veterinary medicine program - He appealed to the University Council's Appeal Board, alleging that a failure to accommodate his learning disability had resulted in his failing grades - He also filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission - The Appeal Board denied Hebron's appeal - The University and the Dean asked the Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission to dismiss Hebron's complaint under s. 27.1(2)(d) of the Human Rights Code on the basis that its substance had been appropriately dealt with - The Chief Commissioner refused to dismiss the complaint - Danyliuk, J., quashed the decision - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed Hebron's appeal - The effect of the Chief Commissioner's decision was to permit Hebron to reargue the very same issue that had already been conclusively decided - This was exactly what s. 27.1(2)(d) and the common law doctrines of issue estoppel, res judicata and collateral attack were designed to prevent - The Chief Commissioner's decision was properly found to be unreasonable - See paragraphs 68 to 72.

Civil Rights - Topic 7115

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Practice - Judicial review (incl. standard of review) - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3202 ].

Education - Topic 4513

Universities - Students - Academic evaluation - Appeals - [See first and second Civil Rights - Topic 7070.1 ].

Estoppel - Topic 386

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Issues decided in prior proceedings - [See third Civil Rights - Topic 7070.1 ].

Estoppel - Topic 388

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Decisions of administrative tribunals - [See third Civil Rights - Topic 7070.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.) v. Human Rights Tribunal (B.C.) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 422; 421 N.R. 338; 311 B.C.A.C. 1; 529 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 19].

British Columbia (Workers' Compensation Board) v. Figliola - see Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.) v. Human Rights Tribunal (B.C.) et al.

Pearlman v. University of Saskatchewan et al. (2006), 289 Sask.R. 36; 382 W.A.C. 36; 273 D.L.R.(4th) 414; 2006 SKCA 105, refd to. [para. 21].

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. [para. 45].

Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al. (2011), 519 A.R. 1; 539 W.A.C. 1; 424 N.R. 70; 2011 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 45].

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 708; 424 N.R. 220; 317 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 340; 986 A.P.R. 340; 2011 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 45].

Regina Police Association Inc. and Shotton v. Board of Police Commissioners of Regina, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 360; 251 N.R. 16; 189 Sask.R. 23; 216 W.A.C. 23; 2000 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 46].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 471; 422 N.R. 248; 2011 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 46].

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canada (Attorney General) - see Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat.

Alliance Pipeline Ltd. v. Smith, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 160; 412 N.R. 66; 2011 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 46].

Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (Que.) v. Quebec (Attorney General) et al., [2004] 2 S.C.R. 185; 321 N.R. 290; 2004 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 46].

Syndicat de la fonction publique du Québec v. Québec (Procureur général) et al., [2010] 2 S.C.R. 61; 404 N.R. 41; 2010 SCC 28, refd to. [para. 46].

Syndicat des professeurs du Cégep de Ste-Foy et al. v. Québec (Procureur général) et al., [2010] 2 S.C.R. 123; 404 N.R. 114; 2010 SCC 29, refd to. [para. 46].

Tranchemontagne v. Disability Support Program (Ont.) et al., [2006] 1 S.C.R. 513; 347 N.R. 144; 210 O.A.C. 267; 2006 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 49].

Statutes Noticed:

Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, S.S. 1979, c. S-24.1, sect. 27.1(2)(d) [para. 18].

Counsel:

Colin Gusikoski, for the appellant;

Catherine A. Sloan and Paul L. Clemens, for the respondent university and Dr. Grahn;

Scott Newell, for the respondent tribunal.

This appeal was heard on January 29, 2015, by Richards, C.J.S., Caldwell and Herauf, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. On August 25, 2015, Caldwell, J.A., delivered the following reasons for judgment for the court.