Supreme Court

Decision Information

Decision Content

 

 

 

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA

Citation: Brant v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission),  2013 NSSC  56

 

 

 

Date: 20130215

Docket: Bwt. 398760

Registry: Bridgewater

 

Between:              

                                                             

Raymond James Brant

 

 

Applicant

v.

                                                             

Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission and

Nova Scotia Power Inc.

Respondents

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIBRARY HEADING

 

 

 

 

 

Judge:         The Honourable Justice C. Richard Coughlan

 

 

Subject:      Administrative law - Judicial Review - Human Rights -

Procedural Fairness - Decision - Standard of Review

 

 

 


Summary:   Mr. Brant responded to an employment posting by Nova Scotia Power.  He was given a job interview. He was not successful in obtaining a position.  Mr. Brant considered his physical                    disability was a factor in his not being hired.  Following a           resolution conference a Human Rights Officer recommended the complaint be dismissed as it raised  no significant issue of         discrimination.  The Director and CEO dismissed the complaint.  Mr. Brant sought Judicial Review of the decision on the basis he was denied procedural fairness and the decision did not meet the required standard of review.

 

Issue: Was Mr. Brant denied procedural fairness and if he was                                accorded procedural fairness did the decision meet the                                      appropriate standard of review?

 

Result:        Mr. Brant=s complaint was treated with procedural fairness. The          standard of review for a decision whether to refer a complaint to        a board of inquiry is reasonableness.  The decision was               reasonable. The application is dismissed.

 

 

 

 

THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE COURT'S DECISION.  QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE DECISION, NOT THIS LIBRARY SHEET.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.