Cathryn Pike

The appellant appealed a decision regarding the interpretation of s. 33 of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The appellant argued that the provision should be interpreted to require an investigator to prepare and submit a report of their findings to the Commission, relying on the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in University of British Columbia v. Berg.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to read such a requirement into the statute, as there is no uniformity across Canadian human rights legislation regarding investigator reports.

The appellant appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing her application for judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decisions.

The Commission had declined to deal with her sexual harassment and discrimination complaints under s. 34(1)(a) of the Human Rights Code, stating they were more appropriately dealt with under the Labour Relations Act through her union grievance.

The Court of Appeal found the Commission's decision patently unreasonable because the arbitrator had not actually dealt with the human rights issues, and the Commission failed to assess appropriateness on a case-by-case basis.

The Court also found the Commission misunderstood its reconsideration power under s. 37 by requiring new facts.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Commission.

The appellant administrative body appealed a Divisional Court order quashing its refusal to decline jurisdiction over a human rights complaint challenging the recitation of the Lord's Prayer during the daily opening exercise of the Legislative Assembly.

The Court of Appeal held that the Assembly's Standing Orders and acts done pursuant to them fall within the constitutionally protected sphere of parliamentary privilege concerning exclusive control over internal proceedings.

Applying the parliamentary privilege framework from Supreme Court authority, the court held that once the category of privilege is established, neither courts nor administrative bodies may review particular exercises within that category for compliance with human rights legislation.

The court also held that the Commission's refusal to decline jurisdiction was a reviewable decision attracting correctness review.

Appeal dismissed without costs.

The Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario applied for judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission to investigate a complaint regarding the reading of the Lord's Prayer during the Assembly's daily proceedings.

The Speaker argued that the Commission lacked jurisdiction due to parliamentary privilege.

The Divisional Court granted the application, holding that the Standing Orders governing the Assembly's proceedings fall within the scope of parliamentary privilege and are immune from outside investigation by the Commission.