Ruling (.pdf) - International Center for Law and Religion Studies

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Test for Issue Estoppel[4] The preconditions for the operation of issue estoppel are the following:1. that the same question has been decided in earlier proceedings;2. that the earlier judicial decision was final; and3. that the parties to that decision or their privies are the same inboth the proceedings.[5] If the party claiming the estoppel is able to establish these three elements, it is stillin the discretion of a Court or Tribunal whether to apply the doctrine in light of thecircumstances. (Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 460, para. 25)2008 HRTO 22 (CanLII)[6] In my view, Christian Horizons fails in its estoppel claim because the third elementof the test is not met. Ms. Heintz, the complainant in the present case was not a partyin the Parks case. Christian Horizons argues that the Commission was a party in Parks,and under the Code, the Commission has carriage of a complaint before the Tribunal. Itargues that it would be manifestly unfair for the Commission to use the fact of asubsequent complaint to relitigate an issue that was finally determined in a previouscomplaint.[7] A complainant is a separate legal party before the Tribunal. She has anindependent right to participate, and to take positions that may be different than theCommission. (See McKenzie Forest Products Inc. v. Tilberg (No. 1) (1998), 33C.H.R.R. D/258, restored on appeal in McKenzie Forest Products Inc. v. Ontario(Human Rights Commission) (2000), 48 O.R. (3d) 150 (O.C.A.) “Tilberg”). There is nosupport for the respondent’s position that unless or until the Commission decides towithdraw from a proceeding before the Tribunal, there is an identity or “privity” asbetween the Commission and the complainant. The case before me involves thecomplaint of Ms. Heintz. Ms. Heintz was not a party in the Parks case, and as a resultthe third element of the test is not met.[8] I would also note that in Parks, the Board of Inquiry found that Christian Horizonsdid not establish it fell within the scope of the special employment provisions. Christian90
Horizons appealed that decision, and the Court denied the appeal. It is questionablewhether these circumstances even support a claim that the first two elements of theissue estoppel test have been met. It is not clear that it is appropriate to parse certainfindings from a decision which ultimately rejected a party’s claim that it was covered bya statutory provision such as 24(1)(a).Exercise of Discretion[9] There is significant value in consistency and in finality of Tribunal decisions.Parties should not generally be put to the time and expense of relitigating issues thathave been finally determined. Particularly with decisions of tribunals like the HumanRights Tribunal, which have an important educational purpose, the community shouldhave confidence that legislative interpretations and policy approaches are followed withconsistency, unless there is good reason to depart from previous decisions. As theCourt in Danyluk, supra, said:2008 HRTO 22 (CanLII)The law rightly seeks a finality to litigation (….) An issue, oncedecided, should not generally be re-litigated to the benefit of thelosing party and the harassment of the winner. A person shouldonly be vexed once in the same cause. Duplicative litigation,potential inconsistent results, undue costs, and inconclusiveproceedings are to be avoided.Finality is thus a compelling consideration and judicial decisionsshould generally be conclusive of the issues decided unlessand until reversed on appeal. However, estoppel is a doctrineof public policy that is designed to advance the interests ofjustice. (paras. 18-19)[10] On the last point, the Court emphasized that, since the purpose of estoppel is topromote fairness, a decision maker must ensure that its application does not insteadlead to an injustice. Quoting Finch J.A. in Bugbusters Pest Management Inc. (1998), 50B.C.L.R. (3d) 1, the Court in Danyluk said: “It inevitably calls upon the exercise of ajudicial discretion to achieve fairness according to the circumstances of each case.”(para. 63).[11] The same considerations apply when determining a claim for abuse of process.91
Page 1 and 2:
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO___
Page 3 and 4:
TABLE OF CONTENTSOVERVIEW .........
Page 5 and 6:
I) OVERVIEW[1] In March 1995, the c
Page 7 and 8:
Code which provides a framework and
Page 9 and 10:
[19] The length of the hearing and
Page 12 and 13:
[31] Rev. Reese testified that, aft
Page 14 and 15:
objects and purposes essentially re
Page 16 and 17:
meet the needs of individuals who w
Page 18 and 19:
support services to the residents,
Page 20 and 21:
organization. Each retreat involved
Page 22 and 23:
Heintz was given a Letter of Employ
Page 24 and 25:
Ms. Dorothy Girling, Ms. Heintz’s
Page 26 and 27:
with pay pending the investigation
Page 28 and 29:
ancestry, place of origin, colour,
Page 30 and 31:
such a defence should not be read i
Page 32 and 33:
all help it can to its members to a
Page 34 and 35:
Analysis and Application of the Fac
Page 36 and 37:
[117] On the basis of the evidence
Page 38 and 39:
[124] Rev. Dr. Brent Hawkes, the Co
Page 40 and 41:
doctrine, unjustifiably entangle th
Page 42 and 43:
Christian Horizon urges me to adopt
Page 44 and 45: persons, individuals identified by
Page 46 and 47: the residents, they were not able t
Page 48 and 49: noted above, that families came fro
Page 50 and 51: would otherwise be discriminatory,
Page 52 and 53: confronted about being in a same se
Page 54 and 55: whole. Section 24(2) imposes a duty
Page 56 and 57: 57. The first step in assessing whe
Page 58 and 59: a rational connection between the q
Page 60 and 61: If individuals in Canada were permi
Page 62 and 63: the faith beliefs of the organizati
Page 64: And so they have gay and lesbian st
Page 67 and 68: discriminatory views of managers or
Page 69 and 70: Horizons’ management from the poi
Page 71 and 72: • On this and suspicious abuse al
Page 73 and 74: Christian Horizons relied on the di
Page 75 and 76: we're committed to as God's way in
Page 77 and 78: obligations placed on all employers
Page 79 and 80: Inc. (No. 4) (1990), 12 C.H.R.R. D/
Page 81 and 82: late in 1999. She testified that wh
Page 83 and 84: Heintz. None of her concerns about
Page 85 and 86: [268] Ms. Heintz testified about he
Page 87 and 88: take steps to justify why gays and
Page 89 and 90: for over 40 years. It has grown fro
Page 91 and 92: 1. the respondent, Christian Horizo
Page 93: ADDENDUM TO FINAL DECISION[1] This
show all

Ruling (.pdf) - International Center for Law and Religion Studies

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?