View cases - Stewart McKelvey

8applicable guidelines. He was given extensions to provide additional information withregard to his reason for not filing a complaint in a timely fashion.[12] In this matter, the NBHRC owed Killam a duty to be fair. According tothe text, Principles of Administrative Law by Jones and de Villars (5 th Edition), at page255, “…The duty to be fair has evolved so that it now applies to every public authoritymaking an administrative decision which affects the rights, privileges or interests of anindividual…” The NBHRC’s decision affected both Killam and Fitchco and is2011 NBQB 131 (CanLII)characterized as a pre-hearing procedure (see Principles of Administrative Law, supra,page 301). By not using its discretion to allow a complaint to proceed because of a timelimit not being met obviously seriously affects Killam because it denies him the right tobe heard. Although a time limit to file a complaint is generally one of strict compliance,the guidelines pursuant to the Act allow for a saving provision as set out above inparagraph 5. NBHRC determined that Killam did not provide information in regard tojustifiable reasons beyond his control or a bonafide reason sufficient to justify not filinghis complaint within the time frame of the Act. It should be noted that Killam originallycompleted the NBHRC form on May 28, 2008 and did not file it until March 24, 2010,some 21 months later. NBHRC did have a duty to be fair to the parties. They providedparties the opportunity to provide further relevant information and gave them extensionsof time to do so. NBHRC provided Killam with decisions for not extending the time tofile a complaint. NBHRC fulfilled their duty of fairness to the parties.