DATE: 20011106 DOCKET:C35943

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE:

SUVANIA SHIU (Applicant (Appellant)) – and – ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION (Respondent (Respondent in appeal)) – and – SUPERIOR-GREENSTONE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD, IVAN BAKK and JOSEPH VIRDIRAMO (Added Respondents (Respondents in appeal))

BEFORE:

ABELLA, GOUDGE AND MacPHERSON JJ.A.

COUNSEL:

Mark Hart and Geri Sanson

For the appellant

Cathryn Pike

For the respondent (Ontario Human Rights Commission)

Donald Shanks

For added respondents

HEARD:

October 26, 2001

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Joan L. Lax dated February 21, 2001

E N D O R S E M E N T

Orally Released October 26, 2001

[1] This appeal is based on the appellant’s assertion that s. 33 of the Ontario Human Rights Code should be interpreted so that it includes a requirement that the duties of an investigator include the duty to prepare and submit a report of his or her findings to the Commission. Section 33 is the section that deals with the investigation of complaints. Under that provision, the Commission is required to conduct an investigation and attempt to effect a settlement. Section 2 states:

s. 2 An investigation by the Commission may be made by a member or employee of the Commission who is authorized by the Commission for the purpose.

[2] The appellant argues that the report requirement should be interpreted into s. 33 based on the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in University of British Columbia v. Berg, 1993 CanLII 89 (SCC), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 353. With respect, in Berg the Supreme Court stated that similar language in human rights legislation across Canada should be similarly interpreted where possible. That case, however, dealt with language that appeared, in one form or another, in every Canadian human right statute.

[3] While there are Canadian statutes which require reports, there is no uniformity such that Berg can be said to apply. We would therefore not read into s. 33, the requirement that there be a report authored only by the investigator.

[4] Accordingly, we see no basis for interfering with the decision of Lax J. and the appeal is dismissed with costs to the Commission if demanded. Leave to appeal costs is granted, however, and the costs order for the motion is varied to grant costs only to the Commission, if demanded.

Signed: “R.S. Abella J.A.”

“S.T. Goudge J.A.”

“J.C. MacPherson J.A.”