West End Construction Ltd. and Scott v. Ontario (Minister of Labour), Human Rights Commission (Ont.), Tabar, Lee and Lee, (1986) 18 O.A.C. 51 (DC)

• Judge: Anderson, Saunders and McKinlay, JJ.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: November 25, 1986
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1986), 18 O.A.C. 51 (DC)

West End Constr. Ltd. v. Ont. (1986), 18 O.A.C. 51 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

West End Construction Limited and David Scott v. Ministry of Labour for Ontario, Ontario Human Rights Commission, Bahjat Tabar, Chong Man Lee and Kyung S. Lee

(No. 1062/84)

Indexed As: West End Construction Ltd. and Scott v. Ontario (Minister of Labour), Human Rights Commission (Ont.), Tabar, Lee and Lee

Ontario Divisional Court

Anderson, Saunders and McKinlay, JJ.

November 25, 1986.

Summary:

Complainants alleged that the corporate owner of an apartment complex and its agent discriminated against them in respect of the rental and occupancy of a commercial unit in the premises, respecting the refusal to consent to assignments of lease. The Ontario Human Rights Commission held that there was discrimination, contrary to ss. 3(1)(a) and (b) of the Human Rights Code and awarded the complainants substantial damages. The apartment owner and its agent appealed. The main issue on appeal was whether the complaints of discrimination were barred by the two year limitation period in s. 45(1)(h) of the Limitations Act.

The Ontario Divisional Court held that the Limitations Act applied to complaints of discrimination and that one of the complaints was out of time. Accordingly, the Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part and set aside the Commission's order respecting that complainant.

Civil Rights - Topic 913

Discrimination - Complaints - Limitation periods - The Ontario Divisional Court held that a claim of discrimination under the Human Rights Code had a limitation period of two years pursuant to s. 45(1)(h) of the Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 240 - The court held that the limitation period began to run at the time when the impugned conduct took place and ceased to run when the complaint was made.

Words and Phrases

Action - The Ontario Divisional Court held that the word "action" as found in s. 1(a) of the Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 240, included a claim of discrimination under the Human Rights Code as adjudicated by a board of inquiry - See paragraphs 15 to 19, 24 to 29.

Words and Phrases

Action - The Ontario Divisional Court held that the word "action" as found in the phrase "action for a penalty, damages or a sum of money given by ... statute to ... the party aggrieved" in s. 45(1)(h) of the Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 240, included a claim of discrimination under the Human Rights Code as adjudicated by a board of inquiry, resulting in damages being paid to the complainants as compensation - See paragraphs 15 to 16, 20 to 21, 30 to 39.

Words and Phrases

Compensation - The Ontario Divisional Court held that the word "compensation" in s. 19(b) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1980, c. 340, included interest - See paragraph 13.

Cases Noticed:

Olarte, Ontario and Human Rights Commission (Ont.) et al. v. Commodore Business Machines Ltd. and DeFilippis (1984), 6 O.A.C. 176; 49 O.R.(2d) 17, folld. [para. 8].

Attorney General v. B.B.C., [1980] 3 All E.R. 161, refd to. [para. 25].

Roberts v. Metropolitan Borough of Battersea (1914), 110 L.T. 566, refd to. [para. 26].

China v. Harrow Urban District Council, [1954] 1 Q.B. 178, refd to. [para. 28].

Thomson v. Lord Clanmorris, [1900] 1 Ch. 718 (C.A.), not folld. [para. 30].

Johnson Controls Inc. v. Varta Batteries Limited (1984), 53 N.R. 6, not folld. [paras. 30 & 47].

Robinson v. Essex (1932), 41 O.W.N. 342 (C.A.), folld. [paras. 32 & 46].

Bhaduria v. Seneca College (1981), 37 N.R. 455; 124 D.L.R.(3d) 193 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 34].

A.M. Smith & Co. Ltd. v. Government of Canada (1981), 36 N.R. 206 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Yarrows v. Frowde Limited, [1934] O.R. 526 (C.A.), not appld. [para. 35].

Moncton v. Buggie et al. (1984), 57 N.B.R.(2d) 211; 148 A.P.R. 211; 14 D.L.R.(4th) 100, refd to. [para. 39].

McGavin Toastmaster Ltd. et al. v. Powloroski, Re, 37 D.L.R.(3d) 100 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Thomson v. Lord Clanmorris, [1900] 1 Ch. 718 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

Statutes Noticed:

Human Rights Code, R.S.C. 1980, c. 340, sect. 3(1) [paras. 4-5]; sect. 19 [paras. 4, 15]; sect. 19(b) [para. 13].

Human Rights Code, S.O. 1981, c. 53, sect. 33(1)(d) [para. 38].

Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 240, sect. 1(a) [paras. 15, 17, 19, 27, 29]; sect. 45(1)(h) [paras. 14, 20-21, 23, 30-33, 36, 47-48].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [paras. 10-11]; sect. 11 [para. 12].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Shorter Oxford Dictionary (1973) [para. 18].

Limitation of Actions, Report on, Ontario Law Reform Commission (1969) [para. 23].

Jowett's Dictionary of English Law (2nd Ed.) [para. 24].

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed.), vol. 37, para. 17 [para. 24].

Mozley and Whitney's Law Dictionary (5th Ed.) [para. 27].

Franks, Limitation of Actions (1959) [para. 28].

Laskin, John I., Proceedings Under the Ontario Human Rights Code, 2 Advocates Quarterly 290 [para. 41].

Counsel:

Harold Elliott, Q.C., and John G. Richardson, for the appellants;

Janet E. Minor, for the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

This appeal was heard before Anderson, Saunders and McKinlay, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court on September 9 and 10, 1986. The decision of the Divisional Court was released on November 25, 1986, when the following opinions were filed:

Anderson, J. (McKinlay, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 44;

Saunders, J. - see paragraphs 45 to 48.