Sheila Schweizer

The applicant filed a human rights application over two years after the underlying events.

The respondents requested early dismissal on the basis of delay and section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that section 53(8) did not bar the application because a prior complaint had never been formally 'filed' with the Commission.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application because it was filed beyond the one-year limitation period and the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith, noting a lack of due diligence in pursuing the claim despite communications from the Commission.

The applicants brought three human rights applications against the respondents.

The respondents requested the dismissal of certain allegations based on delay, and the applicants requested the consolidation of all three applications.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to an October 2007 incident due to unexplained delay, but allowed the allegations relating to a March 2009 incident to proceed as the delay was incurred in good faith while pursuing a Police Services Act complaint.

The Tribunal declined to consolidate the older transitional application with the newer section 34 applications due to the temporal gap and different stages of the proceedings, but ordered the two section 34 applications to be consolidated.

The appellant police officer brought a motion on consent to lift the automatic stay of his penalty of demotion pending his appeal.

The officer had pled guilty to discreditable conduct for unaccounted absences and was demoted for one year with ongoing conditions.

He abandoned his appeal of the demotion but maintained his appeal of the conditions.

The Commission found it had jurisdiction under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to lift the stay and granted the motion, noting that the appeal was not frivolous, the officer sought to serve his demotion immediately to avoid prejudice to future promotion opportunities, and the employer consented.

The Appellant, a police sergeant, pled guilty to discreditable conduct involving time theft and was penalized with a one-year demotion to First Class Constable along with eight conditions for reinstatement.

He appealed the conditions but abandoned the appeal of the demotion, bringing a motion to lift the automatic stay of the demotion so he could begin serving it immediately.

The Respondent supported the motion.

The Commission granted the motion, finding the appeal was not frivolous, the Appellant could be prejudiced by a delay, and lifting the stay would not adversely affect the consideration of the remaining appeal regarding the conditions.