Geri Sanson

The appellants, two Black lawyers, were aggressively asked for identification in a lawyers' lounge by a librarian who did not question anyone else.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found this constituted racial discrimination.

The Divisional Court quashed the decision, finding the tribunal applied the wrong test and reversed the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the tribunal's decision, holding that the Divisional Court erred by requiring a 'causal nexus' for discrimination and by confusing the legal burden of proof with the shifting evidential burden.

The appellant filed a human rights complaint against her former employer.

The Commission decided not to deal with the complaint.

The appellant sought judicial review and requested production of a legal opinion provided to the Commission by its in-house counsel.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that solicitor-client privilege applies to legal advice given to an administrative board by in-house counsel just as it does in private law.

The appeal was dismissed, and the legal opinion was protected from disclosure.

The appellant sought judicial review of the Human Rights Commission's refusal to refer her discrimination complaint to a board of inquiry and sought broad pre-hearing examination and production under r. 39.03.

The Court of Appeal split on whether further disclosure could be compelled from the Commission, with the majority holding that deliberative secrecy and the absence of general discovery on judicial review do not bar a focused examination where there is an objectively reasonable concern that undisclosed facts, arguments, considerations, or strategic factors may have informed the decision.

The court held that the appellant was entitled to examine a senior Commission official on what additional material was before the commissioners, whether strategic concerns influenced the decision, and whether unrevealed reasons existed.

The appeal from the order striking portions of the appellant's affidavit was dismissed, but the appeal concerning the scope of examination was allowed and costs were awarded to the appellant.