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

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