The respondents brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a human rights complaint due to a six-year delay between the filing of the complaint and the appointment of the Board of Inquiry.
The Commission objected to the respondents calling evidence regarding the reasons for the delay, arguing it was irrelevant.
The Board of Inquiry ruled that evidence regarding the delay, the reasons given by the Commission, and the respondents' attempts to expedite the matter are relevant to determining whether the delay constitutes an abuse of process under section 23(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.
The Board allowed the respondents to present their evidence.
