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

[12] In the present case there are a number of reasons which militate against myexercising the discretion to apply issue estoppel or finding an abuse of process:• The length of time between the Parks decision and Ms. Heintz’s complaint.This is relevant because of the potential impact the growth of theorganization might have on the legal questions to be determined. Also,there have been significant developments in the jurisprudence since Parksboth in relation to the rights of gays and lesbians, and on freedom ofreligion.• The balance of fairness favours the full hearing of all the issues. This is acomplaint filed by Ms. Heintz alleging that her fundamental human rightshave been breached. The Parks case dealt with complaints of two otherindividuals. This is not a case where the granting of the request wouldsignificantly reduce the time or expense of the litigation.• The complaint raises important legal issues, and the interpretation andapplication of a “quasi-constitutional” public policy statute. Withoutdeciding whether, as a matter of law, estoppel can operate against theCommission in the context of a complaint brought under the Code, I do notbelieve that it is appropriate to apply the doctrine here.• I had serious doubts about the correctness of the Parks decision.2008 HRTO 22 (CanLII)[13] The above factors are not listed in order of importance, and none arenecessarily determinative. Taken together however, they lead me to find that, even ifthe three elements of estoppel were present and there was an abuse of process, this isnot an appropriate case to grant the request.92