Walter Fox

Following a decision on the merits where the respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the Commission's investigation and hearing, a costs hearing was held to determine the quantum.

The respondents sought an adjournment, arguing that staff's disclosure of costs was insufficient, but the motion was dismissed as out of time.

Staff submitted a bill of costs for $32,332.60, supported by dockets that grouped tasks under generic descriptions.

The Commission found the docket entries insufficiently detailed to justify the full amount claimed and applied a substantial discount, fixing the quantum of costs at $20,000.00 to be paid jointly and severally by the respondents.

Following a preliminary decision that the Board of Inquiry lacked jurisdiction to hear the human rights complaints due to the Commission's failure to fulfill a condition precedent, the respondent Four Star Variety brought a motion for costs under s. 41(4) of the Human Rights Code.

The majority of the Board held that it lacked jurisdiction to award costs because the complaints were not 'dismissed' within the strict meaning of the Code.

The motion for costs was denied.

A dissenting member would have found jurisdiction to award costs but denied them on the basis that the respondent suffered no undue hardship, as its legal fees were paid by a third party.

The respondents brought preliminary motions to dismiss human rights complaints regarding the display and sale of pornographic magazines in convenience stores.

The primary motion argued that the Board of Inquiry lacked jurisdiction because the Human Rights Commission failed to fulfill its statutory obligation to endeavour to effect a settlement before requesting the appointment of a board.

The majority of the Board agreed, finding that the Commission's failure to make satisfactory settlement efforts was a breach of a mandatory condition precedent, rendering the Board without jurisdiction to proceed.

The motions to dismiss on the merits and on constitutional grounds were dismissed as premature.

The respondents in a human rights complaint regarding the display of pornographic magazines brought a preliminary motion seeking full disclosure of the Commission's investigation notes, conciliation records, and other documents.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the motion, holding that there is no pre-hearing discovery in human rights proceedings.

The respondents are only entitled to 'reasonable information' of the allegations against them under section 8 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

Furthermore, notes and correspondence relating to conciliation are privileged to encourage open settlement discussions.

In a human rights complaint alleging that the display and sale of pornographic magazines in convenience stores discriminates against women, 31 organizations applied for interested party status.

The Board of Inquiry held that the Human Rights Code does not permit adding the applicants as full parties.

However, the Board granted the applicants intervener status as amicus curiae, allowing them to make written submissions at the conclusion of the case, with the possibility of oral argument or calling evidence if deemed helpful and non-prejudicial.