Decisions on NWT Human Rights complaints are made by the Human Rights Adjudication Panel (HRAP). A searchable database of all HRAP decisions can be found on CanLii. Decisions are only available in English. If you require a decision in another official language, please contact HRAP.
A summary of each decision is listed below. Click on the title to read the entire decision. For information about upcoming hearings or the Panel’s rules and regulations, visit the Adjudication Panel’s website.
2022
Minde v. Northwest Territories (Department of Finance), 2022
APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR’S DECISION
Ms. Minde filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission in November 2018. On August 7, 2020 the Director of Human Rights (the Director) dismissed her human rights complaint for delay. Ms. Minde appealed the Director’s decision to dismiss her complaint.
Adjudicator Baile determined the Director did not have the statutory authority to dismiss Ms. Minde’s complaint due to delay. He overturned the Director’s decision to dismiss the complaint and determined the complaint would be heard.
The Commission filed a judicial review of this decision. It has yet to be determined.
Schidlowsky v. Great Slave Animal Hospital, 2022
Mr. Schidlowsky filed a complaint with the Commission alleging he was discriminated against by his employer on the grounds of disability and family affiliation. He also alleged that he was harassed on the basis of his disability.
Mr. Schidlowsky alleged that over the course of the final three years of employment with Great Slave Animal Hospital, his disability was not accommodated; he was harassed, and his employment was terminated because of his disability and family affiliation.
The Adjudicator found that Great Slave Animal Hospital discriminated against Mr. Schidlowsky on the prohibited grounds of disability and family affiliation. Further, that Great Slave Animal Hospital harassed Mr. Schidlowsky in the course of his employment.
The Adjudicator ordered Great Slave Animal Hospital to pay Mr. Schidlowsky $13,000 for lost income; $10,000 for injury to his dignity, feelings, and self-respect; and $2,000 as exemplary damages for
wilfully contravening section 14 of the Act.
Moore v. Northwest Territories Housing Corporation, 2022
APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR’S DECISION
Mr. Moore filed a complaint with the Commission alleging race, colour, ethnic origin, social condition, nationality, place of origin and/or ancestry was a factor in the termination of his employment. On October 20, 2020, the Director dismissed Mr. Moore’s complaint finding it failed to meet the threshold to refer it to a Panel hearing.
Mr. Moore argued the Director’s decision should be set aside and his complaint set for a hearing on its merits. Both Mr. Moore and the NWT Housing Corp provided new evidence at the appeal. Mr. Moore stated the new documents were relevant to his human rights complaint and that they further bolstered his case of discrimination. NWT Housing Corporation stated that Mr. Moore’s new evidence did not provide any further evidence in support of his allegations of discrimination.
Adjudicator Parker stated there must be a basis beyond mere speculation and accusations to believe a human rights complainant could show a breach of the Act. He found the evidence supported a rational explanation for the steps the Housing Corporation took to terminate Mr. Moore’s employment. Adjudicator Parker found Mr. Moore did not provide any evidence to show any of the grounds protected under the Act were a factor in the termination of his employment.
Adjudicator Parker affirmed the Director’s decision to dismiss Mr. Moore’s human rights complaint and dismissed his appeal.
2021
Portman v. Northwest Territories (Department of Justice), 2021
Ms. Portman filed a human rights complaint against the Government of the Northwest Territories (“GNWT”), as represented by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in December of 2016 alleging the GNWT discriminated against her, based on her disability, by denying facilities and services customarily available to members of the public at the courthouse in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories.
Adjudicator Toner heard the case in February and March of 2020. He summarized the case as being about whether the GNWT met its obligations to provide accessible facilities and services at the courthouse. Adjudicator Toner examined whether the GNWT’s renovations to the courthouse reasonably accommodated the complainant to the point of undue hardship, whether the renovations addressed conditions which discriminate against the complainant, and whether any barriers remain without bona fide and reasonable justification.
Adjudicator Toner found renovations made to the first floor of the courthouse achieved reasonable accommodations but failed to provide visual markers for the accessibility ramp and an emergency call system in the universal accessible washroom. The Adjudicator determined the GNWT failed to address known accessibility issues elsewhere in the building, and that the remaining barriers could not be reasonably justified. The GNWT did not establish undue hardship.
Adjudicator Toner found the GNWT discriminated against Ms. Portman on the basis of her disability and ordered:
- The GNWT to install tactile walking indicator surfaces to inform persons using the accessibility ramp at the courthouse of changes in elevation;
- The GNWT to upgrade washrooms in the courthouse to barrier-free standards set out in the NBC and CSA B651, including provision of an emergency call system in any universal washroom with a single toilet and lavatory;
- The GNWT to ensure an adequate number of barrier-free washrooms exist at the courthouse, based on an analysis of occupancy loads and travel distances within the facility; and
- Pay Ms. Portman $5,000.00 as compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.
Duley v. De Beers Canada Inc., 2021
APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR’S DECISION
This is an appeal of the Director of Human Rights (“the Director”) decision to dismiss Mr. Duly’s complaint. Mr. Duly alleged that DeBeers Canada Inc. discriminated against him on the basis of his race, colour, ancestry, and disability. The events referred to in his the complaint occurred during Mr. Duly’s employment at DeBeers.
The Director determined the complaint was “trivial or frivolous” under section 44 (1)(c) of the Human Rights Act and dismissed it. The appellant appealed this decision under section 45.
DeBeers applied to dismiss the appeal due to delay but Adjudicator Baile dismissed DeBeers application.
In his analysis of the Director’s decision to dismiss, Adjudicator Baile stated that the Director found no reasonable evidence of a connection between the alleged grounds of discrimination and the appellant’s termination. The Director committed no palpable or overriding error in reaching this conclusion. He dismissed the appeal.
Alberto Lara Mendieta v. Dominion Diamond Mines ULC, 2021
Mr. Mendieta filed a human rights complaint against Dominion Diamond Mines ULC (DDM) alleging that his disability was a factor in the decision to terminate his employment.
Mr. Mendieta required accommodations beginning in 2014 to alleviate numbness and burning pain in his hip and back. He was provided a standing desk and ergonomic chair and had his hours reduced from 12 to 8 hours a day based on the recommendations of his doctor. In August, 2016 while on medical leave, Mr. Mendieta received a temporary layoff notice dated June 30, 2016 followed shortly by a phone call from his supervisor and someone from HR advising that his employment was terminated. One week later, all other employees who had been temporarily laid off were rehired.
Dominion Diamond Mines stated that Mr. Mendieta’s employment position became redundant due to a restructuring of his home department which resulted in the need for a single production engineer rather than two engineers. DDM stated that another engineer employed in the department was better suited for the remaining position and therefore they terminated Mr. Mendieta’s employment.
Adjudicator Baile found that Mr. Mendieta failed to show any tangible link between his disability and the termination of his employment and that his disability was not a factor in DDM’s decision to terminate his employment. The complaint was dismissed.
NWT & Nunavut Workers’ Safety v. Harnish et al, 2021 NWTSC 11
This is an NWT Supreme Court decision.
This decision arises out of an appeal by the WSCC from a decision of an Adjudicator appointed under the Northwest Territories Human Rights Act, who had determined that the Northwest Territories Human Rights Adjudication Panel (Panel) had jurisdiction to consider the complaint of Troy Harnish against the Northwest Territories & Nunavut Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission (WSCC).
The Court allowed the appeal and in doing so, confirmed that the sufficient connection test is the correct test to be applied to questions of jurisdiction where a complaint has extraterritorial elements. The Court determined that although Mr. Harnish’s WSCC claim was eventually being administered by people in the WSCC’s NWT offices, his human rights complaint is substantially about administration of his compensation claim under Nunavut’s Workers’ Compensation Act, a claim which arose in Nunavut involving a person employed in Nunavut and administered pursuant to Nunavut law. Therefore, a stronger connection is with Nunavut and the NWT Human Rights Adjudication Panel lacks jurisdiction to hear Mr. Harnish’s complaint.
The Court also confirmed its expectations on the role and scope of participation of tribunals in statutory appeals or judicial reviews of their decisions. The Court issued an order quashing the decision of the Adjudicator and dismissing the complaint against the WSCC.
2020
Julia Norberg v. Hamlet of Enterprise
Ms. Norberg filed a complaint with the Northwest Territories Human Rights Commission on August 3, 2016 alleging that her former employer, the Hamlet of Enterprise, discriminated against her and harassed her in her employment on the grounds of race and ethnic origin.
The complainant did not attend the hearing, and provided no evidence to support her complaint.
The complaint was dismissed.
Elizabeth Portman v. Elections NWT
Ms. Portman filed a complaint with the Northwest Territories Human Rights Commission alleging she was denied an accessible polling location and was discriminated against by Elections NWT based on her physical disability when she voted in Yellowknife in the 2015 Territorial General Election. The complainant first raised the issue of the accessibility of her polling station approximately seventeen months prior to the 2015 Territorial election. In repeated email correspondence, the complainant raised a number of concerns to the respondent about her polling station by flagging the barriers for persons with physical disabilities based on her own experiences voting in the 2011 Territorial election, the 2015 Federal election and the 2015 Municipal election at the same location.
The CEO of Elections NWT provided the complainant with three alternatives to voting on the day of the election: to vote by way of a mobile poll, a mail-in ballot, or the use of an advance poll. The Adjudicator found that the options provided to the complainant were not responsive to address the inaccessibility of the complainant’s polling station nor did they address how the complainant’s polling station could be adapted to become accessible for persons with disabilities on the day of the 2015 Territorial election.
The Adjudicator did not find that the respondent engaged in a multi-party search for accommodation to the complainant’s disability. The voting options proposed by the respondent were not preceded by any meaningful dialogue with the complainant and the respondent simply expected the complainant to accept one of the options and to cede her right to vote on election day alongside able-bodied voters. The Adjudicator found the CEO’s lack of willingness to engage with the issues of accessibility raised by the complainant was incongruent with her testimony that accessibility was the primary consideration when determining the suitability of the location as a polling station.
The Adjudicator found that Elections NWT discriminated against Ms. Portman on the basis of disability when they did not accommodate her to the point of undue hardship. The Adjudicator ordered Elections NWT to refrain from using inaccessible polling stations or polling stations that cannot be adapted to become accessible with reasonable accommodations for future Territorial elections.
Ms. Portman was awarded $5,000.00 in compensation for damages and injury to her dignity, feelings and self-respect.
Troy Harnish v Northwest Territories and Nunavut Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission
This preliminary decision addresses the WSCC’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The WSCC argues the Northwest Territories Adjudication Panel (Panel) does not have jurisdiction to consider a Nunavut-related claim that should properly be heard by the Nunavut Human Rights Tribunal.
Adjudicator Colin Baile noted that the alleged discriminatory actions occurred in the NWT; that the WSCC’s head office is located in the NWT; and that the administration of Mr. Harnish’s WSCC claim took place in the NWT office. He determined that these factors were sufficient to determine that the NWT Human Rights Adjudication Panel has jurisdiction to hear and would exercise its jurisdiction to hear Mr. Harnish’s complaint.
The WSCC’s motion for the Panel to decline jurisdiction was denied.
This decision has been appealed to the NWT Supreme Court.
Estate of Prakash Chugh v AVENS Community for Seniors
This decision was made on an application to dismiss brought by AVENS. Both parties filed written submissions on the application. The issue on the application concerns the Panel’s jurisdiction to review the Director’s decision to amend a complaint and whether the human rights complaint continues after the death of the complainant, in this case Ms. Chugh.
The Adjudication Panel has the ability to implement its own practices and procedures however the Act does not permit the Panel to review administrative decisions of the Director such as the amending of a complaint. Therefore, Adjudicator Paul Parker determined that the Adjudication Panel had no jurisdiction to review or set aside the Director’s decision to amend the complaint to include the estate as the complainant.
Adjudicator Parker examined the Act to determine if NWT human rights legislation indicated whether a human rights complaint survives a complainant’s death. Human rights legislation is remedial in nature and there is a general principle that a broad, policy-based, and liberal interpretation must be given. However, in this case, the adjudicator determined that the NWT Human Rights Act does not extend the protection of a complainant’s human rights to their estate. In this particular case, the estate simply did not have a sufficient interest in the complainant’s human rights. Adjudicator Parker determined that the Panel does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint brought forward by the estate.
For these reasons the application to dismiss was upheld and the complaint was dismissed.
Elizabeth Portman v GNWT and Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada
RULING ON PRELIMINARY APPLICATION
Ms. Portman alleges the Government of the Northwest Territories (“GNWT”) and Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (“Sun Life”) discriminated against her on the basis of disability. The claim is that she was subjected to discrimination by virtue of Sun Life’s disability insurance policy, which the GNWT made available to the complainant as a term of employment. The Director of Human Rights referred this matter to the Panel on November 14, 2011.
This decision addresses a preliminary application by the Northwest Territories Human Rights Commission (“Commission”) to add parties to the complaint, namely the Government of Canada (“Canada”), the Union of Northern Workers (“UNW”) and the Public Service Alliance of Canada (“PSAC”).
On July 11, 2013, Adjudicator Adrian Wright heard the GNWT’s application to be removed. Adjudicator Wright issued reasons for his decision declining to remove the GNWT from the complaint. He concluded it was not clear what remedy might flow from a finding of discrimination in this case, and as a result, it was premature to rule on the issue. He deferred the GNWT’s application to be removed. He did not, on his own initiative, add Canada as a party to the complaint.
The Commission applied to participate in this complaint in May 2018. At that time, the Commission filed a submission with the Panel identifying systemic issues it wished to address at the hearing. On May 29, 2018, Adjudicator Wright directed the Commission to advise the parties of the systemic issues the Commission wished to raise at the hearing. There was no indication that the Commission served Canada or PSAC with notice of its suggestion to add them. The Commission introduced the idea of adding the UNW as a party in its submissions, on the basis the UNW negotiated with the GNWT to participate in a Public Service Health Care Plan, a plan established by Canada for its employees.
In May 2019, Adjudicator Sheldon Toner replaced Adjudicator Wright on this matter.
Adjudicator Toner questioned whether Canada was subject to the NWT Human Rights Act, and whether Northwest Territories adjudicators have any jurisdiction over Canada. This complaint is about alleged discrimination against an employee of the GNWT in the denial of disability benefits, under a disability insurance plan mandated and directed by Canada, underwritten and administered by Sun Life.
Adjudicator Toner identified a division of powers between the territorial and federal governments, as outlined in the Northwest Territories Act. The GNWT exercises jurisdiction over a number of areas, including administration of the public service under the Public Service Act. He determined that the GNWT made itself subject to human rights legislation, in areas including employment, under the NWT Human Rights Act; therefore, it was not necessary to add Canada to ensure the complainant had access to remedies, even if Canada had somehow brought itself under the jurisdiction of the NWT Human Rights Act.
Adjudicator Toner determined that the scope of the Commission’s intended arguments was national and cross-jurisdictional and beyond his jurisdiction as an adjudicator appointed under the NWT Human Rights Act.
The Commission did not initiate or carry the complaint forward as a systemic complaint against Canada, or as a challenge to federal legislation. To add Canada on the terms requested – to justify and defend the disability insurance plan—would effectively mean that Adjudicator Toner added them as respondents. This would be a substantive change, effectively transforming this matter so the Commission could advance systemic issues.
Adjudicator Toner decided that it was too late to make substantive changes to the complaint, and that the adjudicator’s role is not to initiate complaints beyond those referred to the Adjudication Panel by the Director. The request to add parties is effectively a request to amend the complaint after referral by the Director appointed under the Human Rights Act. The Commission’s grounds for adding the prospective parties were insufficient; therefore, the test for adding parties was not met.
This complaint had been with the Panel for more than eight years. Adjudicator Toner also took into consideration the complainant’s submission that adding parties would only serve to complicate a case she was attempting to carry without legal representation.
The Commission’s application to add parties to the complaint was dismissed.
2019
Elizabeth Portman v City of Yellowknife
RULING ON PRELIMINARY APPLICATION
This is a decision on a preliminary application made by the complainant, Elizabeth Portman, who requested that the adjudicator recuse himself. Ms. Portman alleged that Adjudicator
Adrian Wright was biased because he had been the adjudicator in other human rights complaints in which Ms. Portman was the complainant.
Adjudicator Wright examined the four circumstances that would give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias: a relationship with one of the parties, a financial interest in the outcome, an attitude that would make him disposed to a particular outcome, or an involvement in an earlier stage of the decision-making process. Adjudicator Wright concluded that a reasonable observer would not find any apprehension of bias.
Ms. Portman’s application to have the adjudicator recuse himself was dismissed.
Melinda McGee v Community Government of Gametí
Ms. McGee filed a complaint against the Community Government of Gametí alleging that it discriminated against her based on her race, ethnic origin and family affiliation when it terminated her employment. Ms. McGee filed a complaint alleging that comments made to the SAO by the Chief and Counsellors, an incident involving the receptionist, and an incident between the Ms. McGee and the SAO prior to the complainant’s termination were discriminatory.
Adjudicator Paul Parker found that there was no link between the incidents and the complainant’s termination and that there was no evidence to suggest that the complainant’s race, ethnic origin, or family affiliation were factors in her dismissal.
The complaint was dismissed.
Elizabeth Portman v GNWT Department of Health and Social Services
This is a decision on an application made by the respondent to dismiss the complaint. The respondent argued that the complainant did not comply with directions given by the adjudicator and that there had been an inordinate delay in proceedings. This complaint was filed on August 18, 2011.
Section 52 of the Human Rights Act gives an adjudicator the ability to determine the practice and procedure for a hearing. Rule 32 allows an adjudicator to dismiss a complaint if the complainant fails to attend a pre-hearing conference or hearing, fails to comply with a direction made at a pre-hearing conference, or fails to make themselves available for a pre-hearing conference or hearing when requested. The adjudicator found that Ms. Portman repeatedly failed to comply with the directions of the adjudicator.
The adjudicator must determine whether delay harms a party to the extent that continuing with the proceeding would seriously affect its fairness. The adjudicator had concerns about the cumulative impact of both the complainant’s non-compliance with adjudicator directions and the lengthy delay in hearing the complaint. In balancing the interests of both parties, Adjudicator Adrian Wright assessed the elements that were required to make the process fair to both parties. He decided that the balance of interests in this case weighed in favour of the respondent and upheld the respondent’s application to dismiss the complaint.
The complaint was dismissed.
This decision has been appealed to the NWT Supreme Court.
Mabbitt v. Dominion Diamond Mines ULC (2019)
RULING ON PRELIMINARY APPLICATION
This is a preliminary decision about the scope of the complaint being heard. The complaint alleged discrimination and harassment in the area of employment on the grounds of sex and disability. The complainant then wanted to include a complaint of discrimination on the basis of race.
The Adjudicator stated that the Panel does not have jurisdiction to add new grounds to a complaint nor could it allow substantive amendments which would result in the adjudication of something different than what was referred.
The Adjudicator found no evidence in the complaint to establish a connection to race and decided that the hearing would proceed as originally referred from the Director’s office.
Skavinski v. Nats’ejée Kéh Treatment Centre, (2019)
The complainant alleged that the Nats’ejée Kéh Treatment Centre discriminated against her with respect to employment on the basis of her disability.
Between June 2012 and December 2017 the complaint was delayed several times for various reasons. The complainant was advised twice that failing to attend pre-hearing conferences could result in the dismissal of her complaint. She failed to attend a subsequent pre-hearing conference and the Adjudicator dismissed the complaint.
Harnish v. Northwest Territories & Nunavut Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission (2019)
RULING ON PRELIMINARY APPLICATION
This is a preliminary decision addressing the complainant’s allegation of bias against the Adjudicator. The complainant alleged that because the Adjudicator had heard the complainant’s appeals before the Northwest Territories and Nunavut Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal (WCAT), that the Adjudicator would be biased in his decision making which could affect the outcome of the complainant’s case.
The Adjudicator determined that there was no institutional or other relationship that would interfere with his independence as a WCAT member or a human rights adjudicator and denied the complainant’s motion.
Harris v Town of Hay River
Mr. Harris was employed as Director of Finance by the Town of Hay River. The Town dismissed him “without cause” and Mr. Harris submitted a complaint that he was dismissed because of his age, a prohibited ground of discrimination. He was in his 60s.
Mr. Harris’s termination letter states his employment was terminated without cause. Mr. Harris stated that the former Senior Administrative Officer (“SAO “) suggested he look for employment elsewhere because the town would be hiring someone in their 40s for a new position after some restructuring.
Witnesses for the Town of Hay River stated that there had been significant financial issues when employees were hired for the newly-created Department of Corporate Services. The new employees were 58 and 72 years of age.
Adjudicator Emerald Murphy stated in her decision that there was no direct evidence that age was a factor in Mr. Harris’s dismissal by the Town. There was only Mr. Harris’s belief that his age was a factor in his dismissal.
Mr. Harris’ complaint was dismissed.
2018
Mazerolle v. Stuart Olson Diamond Ventures Inc. (2018)
RULING ON PRELIMINARY APPLICATION
This decision concerned the complainant’s application to appear at the adjudication hearing remotely. The Adjudicator was satisfied that it would not significantly prejudice the respondent to allow the complainant to attend the hearing from New Brunswick by videoconference. The application to allow the complainant to appear remotely was upheld.
Lessard v. Government of the Northwest Territories (Department of Education, Culture, and Employment) (2018)
RULING ON PRELIMINARY APPLICATION
This decision was made on an application by the appellant to introduce new evidence in the form of two witnesses’ testimony and to introduce a settlement agreement from a separate matter involving the appellant and the respondent to support his appeal of the Director’s decision.
An appeal of the Director’s decision is not intended to decide the complaint itself, but rather to decide if the test for referring a complaint to the Adjudication Panel has been met. The appellant’s proposed evidence did not pass the test and was not considered.
Hamilton v. Government of the Northwest Territories (Department of Transportation) (2018)
APPEAL OF DIRECTOR’S DECISION
This case involved a complaint of discrimination in employment on the basis of age. The Director dismissed the complaint under section 44(b) of the Human Rights Act on the basis that the alleged acts or omissions are not the kinds of acts or omissions to which the Act applies. The Adjudicator found that the information provided by the complainant in support of his complaint would not, if proven, establish discrimination in employment on the basis of age. The Director’s decision to dismiss the complaint was upheld.
Wright v. Inuvik Housing Authority (2018)
RULING ON PRELIMINARY APPLICATION
This decision is based on an application to dismiss the complaint for unreasonable delay. The complainant advised the Adjudicator that she had received help for the issues which caused her to file the complaint. The complaint was dismissed.
Ross v. Beaufort Delta Health and Social Services (2018)
The complainant failed to attend a pre-hearing conference when requested to do so. The complainant requested postponements and failed to attend several scheduled pre-hearing proceedings over a 10-month period. The Adjudicator held that the complaint was abandoned and dismissed the complaint.
Bates, Bates, Anikina v. GNWT Department of Education, Culture, and Employment (2018)
The Adjudicator determined the respondent discriminated against the complainants on the basis of social condition.
The Human Rights Commission submitted that although the respondent accepted the results of the decision and changed its policy, the public interest would be served by including a systemic remedy.
The Adjudicator ordered the respondent to refrain from discriminating against income assistance recipients in the future and ordered the respondent to pay each of the complainants $5000 for injury to dignity.
Lessard v. Government of the Northwest Territories (Department of Education, Culture, and Employment) (2018)
APPEAL OF DIRECTOR’S DECISION
This appeal decision concerns a complaint of discrimination in the area of public service on the grounds of age, social condition, and family status. The complainant was a recipient of income assistance benefits.
The Adjudicator determined that the complainant’s entitlement to income assistance benefits was not adversely impacted by his social condition and, in fact, his entitlement was in part due to his social condition. The Adjudicator found the complaint lacked sufficient merit for referral to adjudication. The information provided by the complainant, if proven, would not establish the discrimination claimed. The Director’s decision to dismiss the complaint was upheld.
Mazerolle v. Stuart Olson Diamond Ventures Inc. (2018)
This decision is about discrimination in employment on the ground of disability and considers whether the respondent violated human rights by terminating the complainant’s employment after he reported symptoms of illness to the respondent.
The Adjudicator concluded that the complainant did not have a disability and therefore did not have a protected characteristic under the Human Rights Act. The complaint was dismissed accordingly.
2017
McMahon v Workers Safety and Compensation Commission, 2017
RULING ON PRELIMINARY APPLICATION
Mr. McMahon filed a complaint with the NWT Human Rights Commission in October of 2013. The Commission required Mr. McMahon to amend his complaint and the form was sent to him in November of 2015. The amended complaint alleges that the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut (“WSCC”) discriminated against him by refusing to make a full pension conversion due to the level of his impairment. The respondent filed an application to dismiss the complaint before hearing arguing Mr. McMahon’s lack of participation had resulted in an unreasonable delay. Mr. McMahon failed to provide a copy of his amended complaint form, failed to attend a number of pre-hearing conferences, and failed to provide reasons for his absences. The adjudicator agreed that Mr. McMahon’s lack of participation in the adjudication of his complaint delayed the process. The complaint against the WSCC was dismissed.
Portman v Yellowknife (City), 2017 (No. 2)
A second decision in this matter was issued in January of 2017 as a result of the decision handed down in September 2016. Ms. Portman argued that the City of Yellowknife continued to charge users of the Disabled Transit System (DTS) higher fares for single trips and punch passes. She claimed that the difference in fares continued to be discriminatory and went against the order of the first decision. She asked that the City be ordered to reimburse all of the users who had been paying higher fares between September 22, 2016 and January 2, 2017.
The Panel stated that section 62(3)(a)(viii) of the Human Rights Act gives it the authority to address contraventions of the Act to any person affected, even if they had not been a party to the original complaint or participated in the hearing. The Panel ordered the City of Yellowknife to compensate all users affected by the discriminatory fares between September 22, 2016 and January 2, 2017.
This decision has been appealed.
2016
A.B. v Yellowknife (City), 2016 (No.1)
A.B. filed a human rights complaint against the City of Yellowknife alleging that the City failed to accommodate her based on her family status forcing her to resign her position. A.B requested an accommodation to cover a period of 8-9 weeks so that she could care for her child who has a disability. The City argued that its proposed alternate schedules met their duty to accommodate and that A.B.resigned because she didn’t like the accommodation proposed.
The adjudicator determined that the City failed to be flexible and became entrenched in its refusal to accommodate her needs.
A.B. v Yellowknife (City), 2016 (No.2)
This decision was issued to determine the remedy in this case. The adjudicator ordered The City of Yellowknife to refrain from discriminating based on family status in the future and to award A.B. a total of $55,342.54 as compensation: $35,213.47 for lost income and benefits; $129.07 for hearing expenses; $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect; and $5,000 in exemplary damages.
The City of Yellowknife has appealed the original decision.
Portman v Northwest Territories (Department of Justice), 2016
APPEAL OF DIRECTOR’S DECISION
Ms. Portman filed a human rights complaint against Legal Aid alleging that denying her coverage discriminates against her as a person with a disability by negatively and adversely affecting her access to the NWT human rights process. The Director of the NWT Human Rights Commission dismissed her complaint prior to it reaching a tribunal. Ms. Portman appealed the Director’s decision.
The adjudicator overturned the Director’s decision stating it “…did not address the issue of adverse effect discrimination or the systemic nature of the alleged complaint, failed to identify the proper “service” in issue, and did not consider whether there was justification for the alleged discrimination”. The adjudicator then made a decision about whether or not Legal Aid discriminated against Ms. Portman by refusing to provide her with its services.
After overturning the Director’s decision, the adjudicator looked to the case to determine whether Legal Aid discriminated against Ms. Portman on the basis of her disability and whether the denial of Legal Aid is a systemic issue. The adjudicator ruled that Legal Aid’s policy to refuse funding for human rights complaints had an adverse impact on her access to the human rights complaint process. He also stated a policy which denies funding for human rights complaints can result in discrimination against persons with certain disabilities.
The ruling in this case ordered the GNWT to award Ms. Portman $10,000 for injury to dignity, reconsider Ms. Portman’s application for legal aid in light of her disability and accommodate her to the point of undue hardship, discontinue the practice of refusing all human rights complaints without considering the adverse impact on clients with certain disabilities and accommodate them to the point of undue hardship.
This decision has been appealed.
Portman v Yellowknife (City), 2016 (No.1)
Ms. Portman filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission in 2014 alleging the City of Yellowknife discriminated against her based on her disability and social condition. She argued that the disabled person’s transit system (DTS) cost more than the regular city transit; she argued as well the City failed to make physical alterations to the Ruth Inch Swimming Pool to accommodate her physical disability.
The adjudicator found the City had discriminated against Ms. Portman in both instances and ordered the City to complete specific renovations to the pool to make it more accessible to people with disabilities, to refrain from using a fee structure for their transportation system that discriminated against people with disabilities, and to compensate Ms. Portman in the sum of $8,518.50: $1018.50 being the difference in the cost of bus fare and $7500 for injury to dignity.
Portman v Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, 2016
In November 2013, Elizabeth Portman filed a complaint with the NWT Human Rights Commission alleging the Legislative Assembly discriminated against her by not addressing physical issues which limited her access to the building. The adjudicator found that the Legislative Assembly did not recognize the importance of the issues raised by Ms. Portman and their failure to address her concerns resulted in discrimination. The Legislative Assembly was ordered to pay Ms. Portman $10,000 for injury to dignity.
Atkins v North American Tungsten Corp., 2016
Mr. Atkins filed a complaint with the NWT Human Rights Commission alleging his employer, North American Tungsten, discriminated against him based on his disability by refusing to let him return to work after a medical emergency. North American Tungsten provided no response and did not appear at the hearing. The adjudicator ordered North American Tungsten to allow Mr. Atkins to return to work and to compensate him for his lost wages.
2015
Kahak v Liquor Shop
Ms. Kahak alleged that the Liquor Shop refused her service in March of 2014 because of her race or ethnicity. The Adjudicator found no evidence the refusal to serve was related to the Complainant’s ethnic or racial background and the complaint was dismissed.
Lodovici v WAM
APPEAL OF DIRECTOR’S DECISION
Mr. Lodovici appealed the Director’s decision to dismiss his complaint of discrimination against WAM Development Corporation (WAM). Mr. Lodovici filed a human rights complaint in November 2006 alleging that WAM terminated his lease because of his association with individuals identified by race, ancestry and social condition. The Director noted that WAM had attempted to accommodate Mr. Lodovici’s business within their new development plan but there was no evidence to show that they were trying to get rid of his business. The Director’s decision was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.
Smith v UNW
RULING ON PRELIMINARY APPLICATION
This decision is a ruling on Mr. Norman Smith’s preliminary application to have witnesses not living close to Yellowknife testify at the hearing either by video-conference or telephone. Section 42 of the NWT Human Rights Act states that hearings may occur by way of teleconference or video-conference and Sections 43 and 52 makes it clear that the adjudicator will determine the appropriate mode of the hearing to facilitate a just and timely resolution. Mr. Smith’s application was accepted.
Kahak v Liquor Shop, 2015
RULING ON PRELIMINARY APPLICATION
This decision is a ruling on the Liquor Shop’s preliminary application to have the complaint dismissed without a hearing based on a number of factors including the fact that there was an investigation completed by the NWT Liquor Commission; and the respondent felt the complaint had no merit. Counsel for the Human Rights Commission noted that the Liquor Commission Does not have jurisdiction to deal with Human Rights Complaints nor did it appear that the Liquor Commission held any type of hearing. The Human Rights Act states that a complaint can only be dismissed on its merits after a hearing. The Liquor Shop’s Application to have the complaint dismissed was dismissed.
A.B. vs. City of Yellowknife, 2015*
RULING ON PRELIMINARY APPLICATION
This decision is a ruling on the City of Yellowknife’s application to have the adjudicator recuse himself because of a perceived bias. The City argued that an adjudicator who participated with parties in mediation should not preside over the hearing. The adjudicator found that the City did not provide any evidence of impropriety or impartiality. The Adjudicator further noted that neither party had an issue with him continuing as pre-hearing adjudicator nor had he assumed the role of mediator. The City’s application for recusal was dismissed.
2014
A.B. vs. The City of Yellowknife, 2014
APPEAL OF DIRECTOR’S DECISION
A.B. filed a human rights complaint with the NWT Human Rights Commission in July of 2012 alleging the City of Yellowknife discriminated against her by refusing to accommodate her based on her family status and a disability. This appeal concerns the decision of the Director to dismiss the portion of the appellant’s complaint of discrimination based on disability.
The consistent information from both parties indicates that A.B. does not have a disability and that this case is fundamentally a complaint of discrimination based on family status. For these reasons, the appeal was denied and Director’s decision to dismiss the portion of the complaint based on disability was upheld.
Turner v. BDIC and GNWT October 2014
RULING ON PRELIMINARY APPLICATION
This is a preliminary application regarding an appeal of the Director of Human Rights decision to dismiss a complaint of discrimination based on disability. The appellant’s preliminary application seeks an order for the production of documents, or alternatively, an order barring the respondents from using certain material in future proceedings.
In order to make a ruling on the validity of the order, the appeal of the Director’s decision must be determined first. Because Mr. Turner’s application was brought before its time, his application was denied.
Portman v. Union of Northern Workers (UNW), 2014
The NWT Human Rights Adjudication Panel found that that the Union of Northern Workers discriminated against the complainant by refusing to move a membership meeting to an accessible premise so that she could participate. The complainant is a member of the UNW and has a medical condition that makes it difficult for her to go up and down stairs. The Panel ordered the UNW to pay the complainant $10,000 as compensation for injury to her dignity. It also ordered the UNW to provide access to services at a location that meets or exceeds the accessibility requirements of the current National Building Code.
Portman v. Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT) and Sunlife Assurance (No. 3), 2014
RULING ON PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR COUNSEL
Ms. Portman, alleges Sun Life and the Government of the Northwest Territories (“GNWT”) discriminated against her on the basis of disability because their policy did not extend benefits to individuals suffering from disability when they started employment. A second complaint alleges GNWT did not accommodate her return to work. Sun Life is a not a party to this complaint.
Ms Portman says she cannot properly pursue either complaint because both the law and evidence in both is complex. She requested that she be provided counsel to represent her. The panel dismissed the application because the Human Rights Act does not authorize the adjudication panel to appoint counsel.
Zalenchuk v. North of Sixty Camps Ltd., 2014
Mr. Mike Zalenchuk filed a human rights complaint in July 2011, alleging North of Sixty Camps Ltd. refused to employ him and/or refused to continue to employ him due to his age. Mr Zalenchuck was 75 at the time of the alleged discrimination. The Panel found there was no evidence of discrimination and the case was dismissed.
2013
Landrie v. Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT), 2013
Ms. Gabrielle Landrie filed a human rights complaint in January 2012 alleging the Government of the Northwest Territories and Minister J. Michael Miltenberger denied her access to facilities customarily available to the public because she is transgender.
The Panel found that while the complainant was denied access to school facilities, the denial was not related to her gender identity and her complaint was dismissed.
Tracy Thorson v. Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT), 2013
In August 2009, Ms. Thorson filed a human rights complaint alleging that the GNWT terminated her employment knowing she had a disability that prevented her from performing her job duties and functions and without accommodating her needs and circumstances. The Panel found the GNWT discriminated against M0s. Thorson, contrary to sections 5(1) and 7(1)(a) of the NWT Human Rights Act, by refusing to continue to employ her without affording her reasonable accommodation as required by section 7(4) of the Act.
Battaglia v. Hay River Health and Social Services Authority, 2013
APPEAL OF DIRECTOR’S DECISION
This case is an appeal of Director’s decision to dismiss the complaint Mr. Craig Battaglia filed in September 2009 alleging the Hay River Health and Social Services Authority discriminated against him on the bases of religion, family affiliation, political belief and political association. Mr. Battaglia alleged that the discriminatory conduct resulted in the termination of his employment. The Adjudication Panel affirmed the Director’s decision to dismiss the complaint.
Portman v. Government of Northwest Territories (GNWT) and Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (No. 1), 2013
RULING ON ACCESS TO PUBLIC TO PRE-HEARING CONFERENCES
This decision is a ruling on public access to pre-hearing conferences and preliminary applications. Ms. Elizabeth Portman requested all steps taken on these complaints be held in public including pre-hearing conferences, preliminary applications and the hearings.
The Panel noted that pre-hearing conferences are different from hearings because they deal with issues that must be resolved before the hearing. The Panel ruled that pre-hearing conferences would not be open to the public.
Portman v. Government of Northwest Territories (GNWT) and Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (No. 2), 2013
RULING ON PRELIMINATRY APPLICATION TO JOIN COMPLAINTS
This decision is a ruling on Ms. Elizabeth Portman’s preliminary applications to join two of her complaints, one against the Government of the Northwest Territories and Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, and a second against the Government of the Northwest Territories. Both complaints allege discrimination in the area of employment and public services on the basis of disability.
Ms. Portman’s application to join the complaints was denied.
The GNWT’s request to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction because the complaints should have been the subject of a grievance was dismissed.
The Panel deferred the GNWT’s application to dismiss because the complaints fall under the federal jurisdiction and will be decided at hearing.
2012
Juanita Robinson v. Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT), 2012
In May 2006, Ms. Robinson filed a human rights complaint alleging that the GNWT discriminated against her by paying her at a rate less than the rate of pay given to male employees who performed the same or substantially similar work. Ms. Robinson also alleged that the GNWT retaliated after she filed the complaint by making changes to her job description, changing her role and scaling down her operational budget. The Panel found there was insufficient evidence to support Ms. Robinson allegations that she suffered any disadvantage or was denied opportunities in her employment because of her gender. The Panel also dismissed her retaliation complaint.
William Dalton v. Hay River Health & Social Services Authority (HRHSSA), 2012
APPEAL OF DIRECTOR’S DECISION
In August 2012, the Panel dismissed Mr. Dalton’s appeal of the Director’s decision to dismiss his complaint against HRHSSA under section 44(1)(d) of the NWT Human Rights Act. This section allows the Director to dismiss a complaint if it has been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding. In addition to a human rights complaint, Mr. Dalton had filed grievances that were heard by a grievance arbitrator. The Panel found that the grievance arbitration had jurisdiction to apply human rights legislation; it dealt with the same issues as those in the human rights complaint; and Mr. Dalton had the opportunity to meet the case against him.
2010
Robertson & Anthony v. Goertzen, 2010
The complainants, Mr. Robertson and Mr. Anthony, placed an ad seeking rental accommodation in Yellowknife in May 2009. The two men, who are gay and partners, arranged to rent the main floor of a house owned by William Goertzen and they paid a deposit of $1,125. Two days later, Mr. Goertzen learned that the men were gay. Mr. Goertzen refused to rent to them because he is a Christian who believes that God would punish him if he rented a part of his house to homosexuals. The complainants had to depend on the assistance of friends while they found another place to live. They also had to pay a higher rent and to go to the Residential Tenancies Office to obtain some compensation and the return of their deposit from Mr. Goertzen.
In its decision dated September 5, 2010, the Panel found that Mr. Goertzen discriminated against the complainants by refusing to rent to them because of their sexual orientation. Mr. Goertzen’s religious beliefs did not provide a justification for denying the rights of others. The adjudicator ordered Mr. Goertzen to pay each complainant $5,000 for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect, $1,500 for punitive damages and $400.00 for lost wages. The adjudicator also ordered Mr. Goertzen to refrain from committing the same or any similar type of discrimination in the future.
2009
McSwain v. Government of the Northwest Territories, 2009
The Adjudication Panel upheld Jennifer McSwain’s complaint that she was discriminated against because of her marital status by the GNWT’s Department of Justice.
The South Mackenzie Correctional Centre (SMCC) operates a snow removal service for persons with disabilities and the elderly in Hay River. SMCC inmates, under the supervision of corrections officers carry out the snow removal. Ms. McSwain was denied this service because her spouse is a corrections officer. The Panel concluded that the SMCC could accommodate Ms. McSwain without undue hardship and therefore discriminated against her on the basis of her marital status. The Panel deferred the decision on remedies.
In its decision on remedies dated June 15, 2009, the Panel ordered the GNWT to compensate Ms. McSwain $4,000.00 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect. The adjudicator also ordered the GNWT to cease the discrimination.
Weber v. Budget Rent-a-Car and AVIS Budget Rental Group Inc., 2009
On July 8, 2009, the Panel dismissed Ms. Weber’s complaint because there was no longer a cause of action. Specifically, Ms. Weber failed to pursue the final steps in settling the complaint and the respondents had complied with the terms of settlement.
Kwong v. Government of the Northwest Territories, 2009
APPEAL OF DIRECTOR’S DECISION
The Adjudication Panel reversed the Director’s decision to dismiss the complaint for not being filed within the required two year time limit. The Panel accepted new evidence from Mr. Kwong which resulted in him not filing within the time limit. The Panel allowed Mr. Kwong’s request to extend the time limit for filing his complaint.
2008
Huskey v. Diavik Diamond Mines Inc., 2008
RULING ON PRELIMINATRY APPLICATIONS
This is a preliminary decision on the location of a hearing. The adjudicator decided that the hearing would be held in the complainant’s home community of Behchoko.
Sherman v. Mbotloxo Investments Ltd. operating as Boston Pizza, 2008
The Panel found that Ms. Sherman was harassed because of her sex and disability while employed at Boston Pizza. The Panel found that she was subjected to sexually inappropriate conduct from other staff and music in the workplace that degraded women, and that she received little help from management to stop it. The Panel also found that Ms. Sherman was harassed because of her disability when staff repeatedly hid a stool that she used for assistance with her disability. The Panel ordered Boston Pizza to pay Ms. Sherman $1000 for the injury to her dignity, and $2500 for exemplary or punitive damages.
Deranger v.994401 NWT Ltd. operating as The Raven’s Pub, 2008
The Panel dismissed Mr. Deranger’s complaint of discrimination on the basis of his race and ancestry when he was refused access to The Raven Pub. The Panel found that Mr. Deranger did not prove that he was denied access to the pub because he is an Aboriginal person.
Savage v. 984239 NWT Limited operating as Polar Tech et al, 2008
The Panel found that Ms. Savage was sexually harassed in the workplace. The sexual harassment resulted in negative job-related consequences for Ms. Savage. The Panel found that Polar Tech was responsible for creating a poisoned work environment for female employees. The Panel ordered Polar Tech to pay the complainant $7,500 for exemplary and punitive damages and $25,670.33 for lost wages, injury to her dignity, and for counseling sessions.
Lawson v. 994486 NWT Limited operating as Le Frolic Bistro Bar, 2008
The Panel found that Le Frolic Bistro Bar discriminated against Ms. Lawson because of her disability. She was forced to leave Le Frolic with her special services dog after being told that dogs were not allowed in the bar. The Panel found that Le Frolic’s conduct violated the Human Rights Act, but did not give Ms. Lawson monetary compensation.
Burles v. City Cab (1993) Ltd., 2008
The Panel found that City Cab discriminated against Mr. Burles, who uses a wheelchair, when it required him to pay a surcharge in addition to the regular taxi fare for using a handi-van. The Panel ordered City Cab to provide it with a copy of its policy cancelling the surcharge against customers who have disabilities, to stop charging the surcharge, and to pay Mr. Burles $60.00 for reimbursement of the surcharges and $1500 for injury to his dignity and self-respect.
Nelner v. Government of the Northwest Territories, 2008
APPEAL OF DIRECTOR’S DECISION
The Adjudication Panel upheld the Director’s decision to dismiss Mr. Nelner’s complaint because the complaint was not filed within the two year required time limit. Mr. Nelner alleges in his complaint that he was discriminated against by his employer because of his race. The Panel found that the Director’s decision to dismiss the complaint was reasonable and the existence of a grievance arbitration had no impact on the two year time limit.
2007
Merko v. Tundra Transfer Ltd, July 5, 2007
APPEAL OF DIRECTOR’S DECISION
The Panel upheld the Director’s decision to dismiss a complaint alleging discrimination in employment.
Belyea v. Government of the Northwest Territories, 2007
APPEAL OF DIRECTOR’S DECISION
This complaint deals with the Government of the Northwest Territories’ Affirmative Action Policy. The GNWT Affirmative Action Policy was approved under the Fair Practices Act. Section 67 of the NWT Human Rights Act states that all programs that were approved under the Fair Practices Act are considered to be special programs for the purposes of the NWT Human Rights Act. The Director dismissed a complaint alleging discrimination as a result of the Affirmative Action Priority Two category of hiring. The Adjudication Panel upheld the dismissal and found that complaints against the Affirmative Action policy are non-jurisdictional, in other words, fall outside the scope of the Human Rights Act.
Palchuk v. DeBeers Canada and DeBeers Corporate Group, 2007
APPEAL OF DIRECTOR’S DECISION
The Adjudication Panel upheld the Director’s decision to dismiss a complaint alleging discrimination in employment.
Mercer v. Worker’s Compensation of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, 2007
The Commission became a party to the hearing into Mercer v. Workers’ Compensation Board of the NWT and Nunavut in 2006. The hearing was held in January 2007 and the decision was rendered on August 13, 2007. The decision supported the Commission’s arguments. Specifically, Mr. Mercer’s situation of being a seasonal worker from a region of Canada that suffers high unemployment are circumstances that fall under the ground of “social condition” in the Act. The decision also confirmed that the WCB’s policy of excluding Employment Insurance as income for the purposes of calculating benefits had the effect of discriminating against seasonal workers on the basis of social condition. The decision set a national legal precedent in an area of human rights law that is new and evolving. The decision has been appealed to the NWT Supreme Court.
Niziol v. Aurora College, 2007
APPEAL OF DIRECTOR’S DECISION
The Director dismissed a complaint alleging discrimination against Aurora College. The complainant appealed the dismissal to the Adjudication Panel. The Adjudicator overturned the Director’s decision and ordered further investigation. The Adjudicator also provided direction on the appropriate threshold for the Director’s decision-making function. Aurora College appealed the decision to the NWT Supreme Court. The Court upheld the Adjudicator’s decision and clarified the threshold for the Director’s decision-making function. In considering whether to refer a complaint to a hearing, or to dismiss a complaint, the Director is expected to consider: [58] … all of the circumstances of a case must be considered; that there need only be a reasonable basis in the evidence to proceed to a hearing; that the enquiry must be as to whether there is any (reasonable) evidence; that regardless of the respondent’s evidence, if the evidentiary burden is discharged a hearing is warranted. [59] … there must be a reasonable basis in the evidence to proceed to a hearing. Since an adjudication panel at a hearing could accept a complainant’s version of events rather than a respondent’s, where there is contradictory evidence, the person screening the complaint should consider whether, if the complainant’s version is accepted, the complaint could be found to have merit. If so, a hearing will likely be warranted even though the respondent may be able to point to contrary evidence.
Diavik Diamond Mines Inc. v Thérèse Boullard, Director of Human Rights and Peter Huskey, 2007
The Director referred a complaint filed against Diavik Diamond Mines to the Adjudication Panel for a hearing. Diavik Diamond Mines sought judicial review of that decision. The NWT Supreme Court upheld the Director’s decision and further clarified the Director’s decision-making function. [43] … Is there evidence which, if believed, could substantiate the complaint? … It is simply a matter of determining whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant a hearing.
If you are looking for a particular federal, territorial, or provincial decision, contact the Human Rights Commission and/or Tribunal of that jurisdiction. Links to the websites of other Commissions and Tribunals are listed on our human rights links page.
This post is also available in: French