Court quashes Human Rights Commission’s screening decision to refer indigenous student’s complaint for adjudication based on unreasonableness

Court quashes Human Rights Commission’s screening decision to refer indigenous student’s complaint for adjudication based on unreasonableness. 

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Human Rights Commission – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Limitations – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Race – Universities

Saint Mary’s University v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), [2025] N.S.J. No. 178, Nova Scotia Supreme Court, April 17, 2025, D. Boudreau J.

An indigenous university student complained to the Human Rights Commission that her professor (and the non-profit society that published his article) discriminated against her on the basis of “ethnic, national or aboriginal origin” when he published an article anonymously describing an indigenous student in his class who he thought received preferential treatment when she was allowed to withdraw from his class late in the term, after the deadline, rather than receive a failing grade. The professor later confirmed his article was about the complainant. After the complainant submitted a complaint to the HRC, it took many months of back-and-forth with the HRC for it to be perfected and signed. She was also advised by the HRC to apply for an extension of time to submit her complaint, as by the time it was signed, it fell outside of the limitation period. This application was granted, and she subsequently made amendments to her complaint. After this, her complaint was sent to the respondents for the first time; they had not been afforded notice of or the opportunity to provide submissions on any of the earlier issues and requests. After an investigation, an HRC officer recommended that the complaint be referred to a Board of Inquiry for adjudication. No reasons were provided for this decision apart from the Investigation Report.

The respondents argued on judicial review that the recommendation that the complaint be referred for adjudication was procedurally unfair and unreasonable. In the court’s view, based on a reading of the Investigation Report, the HRC officer did not properly engage with the relevant analysis, and was distracted with other non-relevant facts. As a result, the court did not find her conclusions to be reasonable. The court noted there was no reference in the Report to free expression of opinion as a possible issue to be considered in the analysis as to whether the complainant had a prima facie case of discrimination, which was “another significant and substantive flaw.” The decision was quashed.

This case was digested by Kara L. Hill of Harper Grey LLP and first published in the LexisNexis® Harper Grey Administrative Law Netletter and the Harper Grey Administrative Law Newsletter.  If you would like to discuss this case further, please feel free to contact her directly at [email protected].