We’re Sure They’ve Cleaned Up Their Act By Now

Blencoe v. British Columbia (Human Rights Commission) [2000]

Supreme Court decision:

Following the allegations against the respondent, media attention was intense.  He suffered from severe depression.  He did not stand for re-election in 1996.  Considering himself “unemployable” in British Columbia due to the outstanding human rights complaints against him, the respondent commenced judicial review proceedings in November 1997 to have the complaints stayed.  He claimed that the Commission had lost jurisdiction due to unreasonable delay in processing the complaints.  The respondent alleged that the unreasonable delay caused serious prejudice to him and his family which amounted to an abuse of process and a denial of natural justice.  His petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court of British Columbia.  A majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the respondent’s appeal and directed that the human rights proceedings against him be stayed.  The majority found that the respondent had been deprived of his right under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to security of the person in a manner which was not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

…

177   It is true that administrative delay was not the only cause of the prejudice suffered by the respondent.  Nevertheless, it contributed significantly to its aggravation.  It must be added, though, that this delay also frustrated the complainants in their desire for a quick disposition of their complaints.  Finally, the inefficient and delay-filled process at the Commission linked with the specific blunders made in the management of those particular complaints harmed all parties involved in this sorry process.  Its flaws were such that it may rightly be termed to have been abusive in respect of the respondent.  In this connection, I note that my colleague, Bastarache J., despite coming to the conclusion that the conduct of the Commission did not amount to an abuse of process, nevertheless found it necessary to award costs against the Commission in light of the “lack of diligence [it] displayed” (para. 136).  In my view, this further demonstrates the tension in this appeal and the fact that the conduct of the Commission in dealing with this matter was less than acceptable.

The rest.