Walsh v. Mobil Oil Canada et al., (2012) 548 A.R. 41 (QB)

• Judge: Romaine, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: August 22, 2012
• Citations: (2012), 548 A.R. 41 (QB);2012 ABQB 527

Walsh v. Mobil Oil Can. (2012), 548 A.R. 41 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] A.R. TBEd. SE.022

Delorie Walsh (appellant) v. Mobil Oil Canada, also known as Exxonmobil Canada Ltd. and Alberta Human Rights Commission (respondents)

Mobil Oil Canada, also known as Exxonmobil Canada Ltd. (appellant) v. Delorie Walsh and Alberta Human Rights Commission (respondents)

(1001 14246; 2012 ABQB 527)

Indexed As: Walsh v. Mobil Oil Canada et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Romaine, J.

August 22, 2012.

Summary:

In 1991, Walsh filed a complaint of sex discrimination relating to equal pay with the Human Rights Commission (HRC) against her employer Mobil Oil Canada. On February 21, 1995, the Director dismissed her complaint. On the same date, Walsh was dismissed. Walsh filed a retaliation complaint. On December 16, 2005, a one person panel of the HRC upheld the first complaint to a limited extent. The panel found that Walsh was not being paid commensurate with her male counterparts and also confirmed that she was treated differently when she was placed in the land representative AA category, but noted that this was outside the relevant limitation period. The panel restricted Walsh's remedy "to the Panel's finding that between August 1990 and August 1991, Mobil Oil Canada discriminated against the complainant in the areas of her salary and her job category contrary to sections 6 and 7 of the Act." However, the panel found that many acts towards Walsh between December 1990 and June of 1991 constituted "paternalistic management" motivated by a genuine concern for Walsh's well being and did not amount to discrimination. The panel dismissed the second complaint, concluding that there was no link between Walsh's dismissal and her human rights complaint. Walsh appealed the decisions.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at [2007] A.R. Uned. 257, allowed the appeal. The court held that the panel erred: by holding that Mobil's conduct did not constitute discrimination; by interpreting the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act to limit the damages available to Walsh based on the provision that limited the time within which a complaint had to be filed; and by holding that there had to be intent or motivation in order to find retaliation. Finally, the court provided direction to the panel in terms of assessing damages in light of its conclusions.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at [2007] A.R. Uned. 748, awarded Walsh solicitor-client costs. Mobil appealed the decisions on the merits and on costs.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Ritter and Côté, JJ.A., in a decision reported at 440 A.R. 199; 438 W.A.C. 199, allowed the appeal in part, overturning the award of solicitor-client costs (substituting party and party costs) and setting aside the reviewing judge's directions regarding damages. Paperny, J.A., disagreed with the majority's conclusion on the costs issue and, although she agreed with the majority's finding on retaliation, disagreed with its analysis and conclusion on the legal requirements necessary to establish retaliation. An HRC tribunal made decisions relating to remedies, costs and interest. Both Walsh and Mobil sought judicial review, raising various grounds of appeal.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed Walsh's costs appeal with regard to personal costs only. The decision did not refer to any reasons why Walsh's personal costs were not compensable, nor any details with respect to her claim of $30,508.56 in that regard. The court directed that issue to the tribunal for further consideration. The court dismissed all of Mobil's appeal.

Editor's Note: The panel hearing the discrimination complaint had initially determined that it lacked jurisdiction because of delay on the basis that the employer had been prejudiced in its right to a fair hearing; however, on appeal to the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, the complaint was remitted for hearing. See (2004), 370 A.R. 38.

Administrative Law - Topic 25

General - Abuse of process - Multiplicity of proceedings - In 1991, Walsh filed a complaint of discrimination on the basis of sex relating to equal pay against her employer (Mobil) - In 1995, she also filed a retaliation complaint - In the meantime, in January 1994, Walsh was involved in a work-related motor vehicle accident and suffered lasting injuries - The Worker's Compensation (WC) Board pursued a civil remedy against the other driver on Walsh's behalf - Walsh's counsel initially took the position in the litigation that the accident had affected her earnings - The total damages claim in the civil action was $755,485, which included both past and future loss of earnings - Walsh confirmed that the accident was a cause of her lost wages in three discovery examinations (1997, 1998 and 2000) - However, when the WC Board settled Walsh's claim through mediation in 2004, none of the final $145,000 settlement amount was attributed to lost wages - After a number of administrative and court proceedings, Walsh was successful on both her discrimination and retaliation complaints regarding liability - A one person tribunal (Bryant) made decisions relating to remedies, costs and interest - On judicial review, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected Mobil's submission that Bryant erred by failing to properly consider Walsh's election to attribute her income losses after she was terminated to the motor vehicle accident, thus allowing an abuse of process - Bryant concluded that Walsh had the right to pursue her claims in both the WC and human rights forums because each forum would address the claims differently based on their distinct mandates - She also appeared to have accepted that Walsh did not in fact receive any compensation for lost earnings in the settlement of the motor vehicle action - The test for estoppel by election had not been met - Walsh did not seek to retain an award for lost income from the accident litigation and claim an award under the same head of damage in the human rights hearing - She had abandoned the lost income claim in the settlement of the accident action - In addition, Mobil did not rely on an election to its detriment - The choice to pursue lost damages in the accident litigation did not indicate a final or unequivocal election to abandon a claim in the human rights forum - Given the tribunal's finding relating to the contribution of both the physical and psychological consequences of the accident and the consequences of the discrimination and retaliation to Walsh's health, it could not be said that the claims were "diametrically opposed", or that Walsh acted with full knowledge of whether the accident or the discrimination and retaliation caused her losses - Mobil relied extensively on representations Walsh made during the course of the accident litigation - These representations were not made to Mobil, nor were they alleging estoppel by representation - Nor had abuse of process been established - Loss of income had not been determined in the accident litigation by any judicial decision and the parties were not the same - While issue estoppel was not the only factor that might give rise to abuse of process, there were no real issues of judicial economy, consistency or finality here, and no challenge to the integrity of the administration of justice - There was no injustice in allowing the claim to proceed in the human rights forum, particularly as Bryant was careful to distinguish between loss of income attributable to discrimination and retaliation and loss attributable to injuries caused by the motor vehicle accident - See paragraphs 111 to 115.

Administrative Law - Topic 221

The hearing and decision - Right to be heard - General - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "The right to be heard (audi alterum partum) generally includes the right to submit relevant evidence before a decision-maker. ... A decision made without full consideration of the relevant evidence may be quashed and sent back to the decision-maker for reconsideration with regard to all of the evidence ... However, this is not an automatic outcome. Where the breach has no material effect on the outcome of the decision, it will not justify the overruling of the decision" - See paragraphs 65 and 66.

Administrative Law - Topic 227

The hearing and decision - Right to be heard - Violation - Consequences - [See Administrative Law - Topic 221 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 549

The hearing and decision - Decisions of the tribunal - Reasons for decisions - Sufficiency of - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 7108 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2088

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal (considerations incl. bias) - Bias - Apprehension of - In 1991, Walsh filed a complaint of discrimination on the basis of sex relating to equal pay - The Alberta Human Rights Commission (HRC) did not investigate the complaint until September 1994 - On February 21, 1995, the Director dismissed her complaint - On the same date, Walsh was dismissed - Walsh filed a retaliation complaint - A one person HRC panel (Bryant) upheld the first complaint to a limited extent and dismissed the second complaint - Walsh appealed the decisions - The appeal was allowed and Walsh was awarded solicitor-client costs - Mobil appealed - The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, overturning the award of solicitor-client costs (substituting party and party costs) and setting aside the reviewing judge's directions regarding damages - The court remitted the matter to the Commission to proceed with a remedy hearing - Once again, Bryant was appointed (this time as a "tribunal" rather than a "panel" in accordance with changes to the legislation) - Bryant made decisions relating to remedies, costs and interest - On judicial review, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected Walsh's argument that having Bryant conduct the hearings gave rise to an apprehension of bias - Walsh raised the issue for the first time on this judicial review - A party alleging reasonable apprehension of bias should raise it with the decision-maker at the earliest practicable opportunity - Further, Bryant did not have to provide herself with a cleansing self-instruction to show that she would rely only on fact, logic and the law in making her decision - See paragraphs 54 to 64.

Administrative Law - Topic 6244

Judicial review - Statutory appeal - Remedies on appeal - Remittal of award or decision - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 7108 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7108

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Practice - Costs (incl. on appeal) - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 7185 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7108

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Practice - Costs (incl. on appeal) - After a number of administrative and court hearings, Walsh was successful in her human rights complaints of discrimination on the basis of sex relating to equal pay and retaliation against her employer (Mobil) - A one person tribunal (Bryant) appointed by the Alberta Human Rights Commission made decisions relating to remedies, costs and interest - Walsh and Mobil appealed - On judicial review, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench directed the matter of Walsh's personal costs back to the tribunal - Bryant followed the decision of the majority of the Court of Appeal with respect to legal costs, and there was no error in that decision - However, Bryant's costs decision did not refer to any reasons why Walsh's personal costs were not compensable, nor any details with respect to her claim of $30,508.56 in that regard - See paragraphs 107 and 108.

Civil Rights - Topic 7110

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Practice - Evidence and proof - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 7185 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7115

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Practice - Judicial review (incl. standard of review) - After a number of administrative and court hearings, Walsh was successful in her human rights complaints of discrimination on the basis of sex relating to equal pay and retaliation against her employer (Mobil) - A one person tribunal appointed by the Alberta Human Rights Commission made decisions relating to remedies, costs and interest - Walsh and Mobil appealed - The appeals were consolidated in a judicial review application - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the determination of income loss, being a particular kind of compensation that was within the tribunal's statutory authority to grant, was subject to a reasonableness standard of review, as was the tribunal's costs decision - A correctness standard applied to procedural fairness issues - See paragraphs 31 to 53.

Civil Rights - Topic 7185

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Remedies - Damages - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench provided an overview of the Alberta Human Rights Commission's authority to provide compensation and costs - See paragraphs 72 to 76.

Civil Rights - Topic 7185

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Remedies - Damages - After a number of administrative and court hearings, Walsh was successful in her human rights complaints of discrimination on the basis of sex relating to equal pay and retaliation against her employer (Mobil) - A one person tribunal (Bryant) appointed by the Alberta Human Rights Commission made decisions relating to remedies, costs and interest - Walsh and Mobil appealed - The appeals were consolidated in one judicial review application - Walsh objected to, inter alia, the basis for Bryant's award for damages for income loss - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, per Romaine, J., found that "Ms. Bryant was correct in finding that any assertion that Mobil's policies were discriminatory should have been made at the liability stage of the hearing process, and that such a complaint was too late to be raised at the remedy stage. I also find that she applied the policies as they are written, based on factors of experience, education and merit and without gender-related considerations, and that this was consistent with the Alberta Human Rights Commissions Information Sheet on Equal Pay for Similar Work. It was not necessary for Ms. Bryant to discard the policies and engage in a free-standing analysis of job descriptions and industry-wide comparator at the remedies stage of the hearing." - See paragraph 88.

Civil Rights - Topic 7185

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Remedies - Damages - In 1991, Walsh filed a complaint of discrimination on the basis of sex relating to equal pay against her employer (Mobil) - In 1995, she also filed a retaliation complaint - In the meantime, in January 1994, Walsh was involved in a work-related motor vehicle accident and suffered lasting injuries - The Worker's Compensation Board (WCB) pursued a civil remedy against the other driver on Walsh's behalf - Walsh's counsel initially took the position in the litigation that the accident had affected her earnings - The total claim for damages in the civil action was $755,485, which included both past and future loss of earnings - Walsh confirmed that the accident was a cause of her lost wages in three discovery examinations (1997, 1998 and 2000) - However, when the WCB settled Walsh's claim through mediation in 2004, none of the final $145,000 settlement amount was attributed to lost wages - Walsh claimed that this head of damages was dropped during the settlement negotiations - After a number of administrative and court hearings, Walsh was successful on both complaints - A one person tribunal (Bryant) appointed by the Alberta Human Rights Commission made decisions relating to remedies, costs and interest - Walsh and Mobil appealed - The appeals were consolidated in one judicial review application - Walsh submitted, inter alia, that if Bryant had properly applied the "but for" test for causation, she would have awarded loss of income and related pension and fringe benefits to Walsh's date of retirement, and not cut off liability as at the end of 2000 - Walsh submitted that Bryant should have found that, without the retaliation, she would not have been fired and would still be employed by Mobil - She submitted that her physical limitations and concerns would have been accommodated by Mobil as required - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the submissions - Walsh herself had made representations during the workers compensation process and litigation that made it clear that there were multiple causes to her income loss that included her physical injuries from the accident - To hold Mobil liable beyond 2000 for the entirety of income loss given these admissions would be to assign to a single tortfeasor in a multiple tortfeasor scenario the responsibility for the entire loss - Walsh's choice in the accident litigation to abandon her claim for income loss, made with the advice of counsel, could not create unlimited liability or causation for the entirety of that loss to Mobil - See paragraphs 89 to 103.

Civil Rights - Topic 7185

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Remedies - Damages - In 1991, Walsh filed a complaint of discrimination on the basis of sex relating to equal pay against her employer (Mobil) - In 1995, she also filed a retaliation complaint - In the meantime, in January 1994, Walsh was involved in a work-related motor vehicle accident and suffered lasting injuries - The Worker's Compensation Board (WCB) pursued a civil remedy against the other driver on Walsh's behalf - Walsh's counsel initially took the position in the litigation that the accident had affected her earnings - The total claim for damages in the civil action was $755,485, which included both past and future loss of earnings - Walsh confirmed that the accident was a cause of her lost wages in three discovery examinations (1997, 1998 and 2000) - However, when the WCB settled Walsh's claim through mediation in 2004, none of the final $145,000 settlement amount was attributed to lost wages - Walsh claimed that this head of damages was dropped during the settlement negotiations - After a number of administrative and court hearings, Walsh was successful on both complaints - A one person tribunal (Bryant) appointed by the Alberta Human Rights Commission made decisions relating to remedies, costs and interest - Walsh and Mobil appealed - The appeals were consolidated in one judicial review application - Mobil submitted, inter alia, that Walsh should only have been awarded compensation to the end of 1997 or 1998 when, it submitted, Walsh became unable to work due to causes unrelated to Mobil's conduct - Mobil argued that Bryant made correct findings of fact, but failed to follow the evidence when she awarded compensation to the end of 2000 - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the submissions - Bryant was entitled to take a robust, common sense interpretation of the "but for" test and that was what she did - See paragraphs 116 to 120.

Civil Rights - Topic 7185

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Remedies - Damages - In 1991, Walsh filed a complaint of discrimination on the basis of sex relating to equal pay against her employer (Mobil) - In 1995, she also filed a retaliation complaint - In the meantime, in January 1994, Walsh was involved in a work-related motor vehicle accident and suffered lasting injuries - The Worker's Compensation Board (WCB) pursued a civil remedy against the other driver on Walsh's behalf - Walsh's counsel initially took the position in the litigation that the accident had affected her earnings - The total claim for damages in the civil action was $755,485, which included both past and future loss of earnings - Walsh confirmed that the accident was a cause of her lost wages in three discovery examinations (1997, 1998 and 2000) - However, when the WCB settled Walsh's claim through mediation in 2004, none of the final $145,000 settlement amount was attributed to lost wages - After a number of administrative and court hearings, Walsh was successful on both complaints - A one person tribunal (Bryant) appointed by the Alberta Human Rights Commission made decisions relating to remedies, costs and interest - On judicial review, Mobil submitted that Bryant erred, inter alia, in determining that Walsh would have obtained a salary grade of 14 - Walsh responded that Bryant should have placed her in salary grade 16 primarily on the basis of her "equal pay for equal work" submissions - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected both submissions - The court accorded the tribunal the deference due to a factual finding reached as the result of the correct application of the law, with the result that it agreed with the tribunal's assessment of damages for lost income - See paragraphs 121 to 123.

Civil Rights - Topic 7185

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Remedies - Damages - In 1991, Walsh filed a complaint of discrimination on the basis of sex relating to equal pay against her employer (Mobil) - In 1995, she also filed a retaliation complaint - After a number of administrative and court hearings, Walsh was successful on both complaints - A one person tribunal (Bryant) appointed by the Alberta Human Rights Commission made decisions relating to remedies, costs and interest - On judicial review, Mobil submitted that Bryant erred, inter alia, in misinterpreting and misapplying the law regarding general damages in the human rights context, thus awarding excessive, unreasonable and unprecedented general damages, while Walsh submitted that the award should have been higher - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench upheld the $10,000 award for the first complaint and $25,000 for the second - See paragraphs 124 to 127.

Civil Rights - Topic 7185

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Remedies - Damages - In 1991, Walsh filed a complaint of discrimination on the basis of sex relating to equal pay against her employer (Mobil) - In 1995, she also filed a retaliation complaint - In the meantime, in January 1994, Walsh was involved in a work-related motor vehicle accident and suffered lasting injuries - The Worker's Compensation (WC) Board pursued a civil remedy against the other driver on Walsh's behalf - Walsh's counsel initially took the position in the litigation that the accident had affected her earnings - The total claim for damages in the civil action was $755,485, which included both past and future loss of earnings - Walsh confirmed that the accident was a cause of her lost wages in three discovery examinations (1997, 1998 and 2000) - However, when the WC Board settled Walsh's claim through mediation in 2004, none of the final $145,000 settlement amount was attributed to lost wages - After a number of administrative and court proceedings, Walsh was successful on both complaints - A one person tribunal (Bryant) appointed by the Alberta Human Rights Commission made decisions relating to remedies, costs and interest - On judicial review, Mobil submitted that Walsh had no right to pursue compensation for the same loss in both the WC forum and the human rights forum - It submitted that the WC scheme had the exclusive jurisdiction to determine all matters and questions relating to the motor vehicle accident - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated "That is true, but Ms. Walsh's claim for damages in the human rights forum does not relate to the same loss. It relates to loss caused or consequent upon discrimination and retaliation, not from the motor vehicle accident. It is appropriate that the accident was considered in relation to the issues of causation, election and abuse of process, but Ms. Bryant was not in error in her finding that Ms. Walsh had the right to pursue her claims in both forums." - See paragraphs 128 and 129.

Damages - Topic 510

Limits of compensatory damages - General - Prohibition against double recovery - [See seventh Civil Rights - Topic 7185 ].

Equity - Topic 4630

Election - When applicable - [See Administrative Law - Topic 25 ].

Estoppel - Topic 378

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Parties - [See Administrative Law - Topic 25 ].

Estoppel - Topic 386

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Issues decided in prior proceedings - [See Administrative Law - Topic 25 ].

Estoppel - Topic 1426

Estoppel in pais (by conduct) - Acceptance - Of money or property - [See Administrative Law - Topic 25 ].

Torts - Topic 54

Negligence - Causation - Test for (incl. ''but for'' test and ''material contribution'' test) - [See third and fourth Civil Rights - Topic 7185 ].

Cases Noticed:

Chopra v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2008), 369 N.R. 207 (C.A.), consd. [para. 29].

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 to. [para. 32].

Igbinosun v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [2007] O.A.C. Uned. 552 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 37].

VIA Rail Canada Inc. v. Canadian Transportation Agency et al., [2007] 1 S.C.R. 650; 360 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 37].

Leon's Furniture Ltd. v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al. (2011), 502 A.R. 110; 517 W.A.C. 110; 2011 ABCA 94, refd to. [para. 40].

Paccar of Canada Ltd. v. Canadian Association of Industrial, Mechanical and Allied Workers, Local 14, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 983; 102 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 40].

Dickason and Human Rights Commission (Alta.) v. University of Alberta, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 1103; 141 N.R. 1; 127 A.R. 241; 20 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 42].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 471; 422 N.R. 248; 2011 SCC 53, appld. [para. 42].

Gale v. Canada (Treasury Board) (2004), 316 N.R. 395; 2004 FCA 13, refd to. [para. 54].

British Columbia Nurses' Union v. Labour Relations Board (B.C.) et al., [1995] B.C.T.C. Uned. E63 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 55].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 57].

Committee for Justice and Liberty Foundation et al. v. National Energy Board et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369; 9 N.R. 115, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. R.D.S., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484; 218 N.R. 1; 161 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 477 A.P.R. 241, refd to. [para. 58].

Taylor and Western Guard Party v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892; 117 N.R. 191, refd to. [para. 61].

Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al. (2011), 424 N.R. 70; 519 A.R. 1; 539 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 62].

Boissoin et al. v. Lund et al. (2010), 488 A.R. 41; 2009 ABQB 592, dist. [para. 63].

Murray v. Canada (Attorney General) (2011), 389 F.T.R. 282; 2011 FC 542, refd to. [para. 65].

Université du Québec à Trois-Riviéres v. Syndicat des employés professionnels de l'Université du Québec à Trois-Riviéres, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 471; 148 N.R. 209; 53 Q.A.C. 171, refd to. [para. 65].

Nagulesan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2004] F.T.R. Uned. 825; 2004 FC 1382, refd to. [para. 66].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Morgan and Canadian Human Rights Commission, [1991] 2 F.C. 401; 135 N.R. 27 (C.A.), consd. [para. 73].

Berry v. Farm Meats Canada Ltd. (2000), 274 A.R. 186; 2000 ABQB 682, refd to. [para. 74].

Brennan v. Canada and Robichaud, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 84; 75 N.R. 303, refd to. [para. 74].

Robichaud v. Canada (Treasury Board) - see Brennan v. Canada and Robichaud.

Hanke v. Resurfice Corp. et al., [2007] 1 S.C.R. 333; 357 N.R. 175; 404 A.R. 333; 394 W.A.C. 333, refd to. [para. 90].

Clements v. Clements (2012), 431 N.R. 198; 331 B.C.A.C. 1; 565 W.A.C. 1; 2012 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 92].

Hodgkinson v. Simms et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 377; 171 N.R. 245; 49 B.C.A.C. 1; 80 W.A.C. 1; [1994] 9 W.W.R. 609; 97 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; 22 C.C.L.T.(2d) 1; 117 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 98].

Freyberg v. Fletcher Challenge Oil and Gas Inc. et al. (2005), 363 A.R. 35; 343 W.A.C. 35; 2005 ABCA 46, refd to. [para. 112].

Syndicat des employés de production du Québec et de l'Acadie v. Commission canadienne des droits de la personne et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 879; 100 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 122].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Mullen, David, The McLachlin Court and the Public Law Standard of Review: A Major Irritant Soothed or a Significant Ongoing Problem?, in Wright, David A., and Dodek, Adam M., Public Law at the McLachlin Court: The First Decade (2011), p. 110 [para. 52].

Wright, David A., and Dodek, Adam M., Public Law at the McLachlin Court: The First Decade (2011), p. 110 [para. 52].

Counsel:

Delorie Walsh, on her own behalf;

Richard F. Steele and Rachel S. West (Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer LLP), for Mobil Oil Canada;

Janice Ashcroft, for the Alberta Human Rights Commission.

This judicial review application was heard on August 22, 2012, by Romaine, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following decision for the court on August 22, 2012.