The respondents brought a motion to stay the human rights proceedings on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias, arguing that the adjudicator was a complainant in another sex discrimination case and had expertise in feminist legal scholarship.
The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, finding that involvement as a party in an unrelated human rights complaint does not create an apprehension of bias.
Furthermore, the Board held that an adjudicator's background in feminist scholarship and involvement in women's organizations does not constitute bias, as requiring adjudicators to have no prior involvement in human rights issues would hamper fair and knowledgeable adjudication.
