Visic v. Human Rights Tribunal (Ont.) et al., 2015 ONSC 7162

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Judge: Molloy, Kruzick and Lococo, JJ.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Citation: 2015 ONSC 7162,(2015), 343 O.A.C. 308 (DC)
• Date: 01 October 2015

Visic v. Human Rights Tribunal (2015), 343 O.A.C. 308 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] O.A.C. TBEd. DE.015

Anica Visic (applicant) v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and University of Windsor (respondents)

(234/12; 2015 ONSC 7162)

Indexed As: Visic v. Human Rights Tribunal (Ont.) et al.

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Divisional Court

Molloy, Kruzick and Lococo, JJ.

December 10, 2015.

Summary:

An Adjudicator of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal dismissed Visic's discrimination complaint against the University of Windsor based on s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, because she had also commenced a civil action against the University in respect of the same matter. Visic applied for judicial review.

The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the application.

Editor's Note: For two related applications see: 343 O.A.C. 299 and 343 O.A.C. 318.

Civil Rights - Topic 7070.1

Federal or provincial legislation - Commissions or boards - Jurisdiction - Complaints - Bars - The University of Windsor refused to remove a failed year's marks from Visic's transcript - Visic claimed that this caused the Law Society of Upper Canada to require her to do an additional period of articling - She filed a discrimination complaint against the University - An Adjudicator of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal dismissed Visic's complaint against the University based on s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, because she had also commenced a civil action against the University in respect of the same matter - Visic applied for judicial review - The Ontario Divisional Court, reviewing the matter on the reasonableness standard, dismissed the application - The Adjudicator's decision was rational, supported by compelling reasons, and consistent with the jurisprudence - See paragraphs 22 to 37.

Civil Rights - Topic 7115

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Practice - Judicial review (incl. standard of review) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 7070.1].

Cases Noticed:

Shaw et al. v. Phipps et al. (2010), 271 O.A.C. 305; 325 D.L.R.(4th) 701; 2010 ONSC 3884 (Div. Ct.), affd. (2012), 289 O.A.C. 163; 2012 ONCA 155, refd to. [para. 22, footnote 6].

Adams v. Human Rights Tribunal (Ont.) et al., [2012] O.A.C. Uned. 781; 22 A.C.W.S.(3d) 482; 2012 ONSC 6119 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 22, footnote 6].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 22, footnote 6].

Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 654; 424 N.R. 70; 519 A.R. 1; 539 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 22, footnote 6].

Guilmoutdinov v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2009 HRTO 1843, refd to. [para. 27, footnote 7].

Kupiec v. Starburst Coin Machines Inc., 2009 HRTO 75, refd to. [para. 27, footnote 8].

Beaver v. Dr. Hans Epp Dentistry Professional Corporation, 2008 HRTO 282, refd to. [para. 32, footnote 10].

Grogan v. Human Rights Tribunal (Ont.), 2012 ONSC 319 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 34, footnote 11].

Statutes Noticed:

Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H-19, sect. 34(11) [para. 21].

Counsel:

David Cousins, for the applicant;

James Schneider, for the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal;

Michael Wills, for the University of Windsor.

This application was heard in Toronto, Ontario, on October 1, 2015, before Molloy, Kruzick and Lococo, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court. The following decision was delivered for the court by Molloy, J., on December 10, 2015.