Blencoe v British Columbia (Human Rights Commission)

Blencoe v British Columbia (Human Rights Commission)
	Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: January 24, 2000 ; Judgment: October 5, 2000
Full case name	The British Columbia Human Rights Commission, the Commissioner of Investigation and Mediation, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and Andrea Willis v. Robin Blencoe
Citations	2000 SCC 44, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307
Docket No.	26789
Prior history	Judgment for Blencoe in the British Columbia Court of Appeal.
Ruling	Appeal allowed.
Holding
	Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to administrative bodies, such as human rights tribunals.; "Liberty" in section 7 of the Charter is broader than physical liberty, and includes where state compulsions or prohibitions affect life choices.; "Security of the person" in section 7 of the Charter includes psychological harm, but the harm must be caused by state actions, and must be serious.; Section 7 of the Charter outside of a criminal law context does not include the principles in section 11(b) of the Charter.;
Court Membership
	Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin ; Puisne Justices: Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, Charles Gonthier, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie, Louise Arbour, Louis LeBel
Reasons given
Majority	Bastarache J., joined by McLachlin C.J. and L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, and Major JJ.
Concur/dissent	LeBel J., joined by Iacobucci, Binnie, and Arbour JJ.

Last updated March 15, 2019

Blencoe v British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the scope of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and on the administrative law principle of natural justice.

The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada, the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts. Its decisions are the ultimate expression and application of Canadian law and binding upon all lower courts of Canada, except to the extent that they are overridden or otherwise made ineffective by an Act of Parliament or the Act of a provincial legislative assembly pursuant to section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in Canada often simply the Charter, is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. It forms the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Charter guarantees certain political rights to Canadian citizens and civil rights of everyone in Canada from the policies and actions of all areas and levels of the government. It is designed to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody those rights. The Charter was signed into law by Queen Elizabeth II of Canada on April 17, 1982, along with the rest of the Act.

In English law, natural justice is technical terminology for the rule against bias and the right to a fair hearing. While the term natural justice is often retained as a general concept, it has largely been replaced and extended by the general "duty to act fairly".

Background

Robin Blencoe had been a minister of the British Columbia government for several years when Fran Yanor went public with a claim of sexual harassment and filed to the British Columbia Human Rights Council (later the British Columbia Human Rights Commission). Several months later two other women filed complaints for sexual harassment.

Robin Kyle Blencoe was a politician in British Columbia, Canada. He was elected to represent the riding of Victoria-Hillside in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in 1983, 1986 and 1991. He served in the Cabinet of Mike Harcourt as Minister of Municipal Affairs, Minister of Government Services and the Minister Responsible for Sport and the Commonwealth Games. He was forced out of office due to a number of sexual harassment complaints, which resulted in Blencoe v. British Columbia, a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the scope of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and on the administrative law principle of natural justice.

British Columbia is the westernmost province of Canada, located between the Pacific Ocean and the Rocky Mountains. With an estimated population of 5.016 million as of 2018, it is Canada's third-most populous province.

Sexual harassment is bullying or coercion of a sexual nature and the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors. Sexual harassment includes a range of actions from mild transgressions to sexual abuse or assault. Harassment can occur in many different social settings such as the workplace, the home, school, churches, etc. Harassers or victims may be of either gender.

Due to delays to the tribunal hearings the claims were not resolved for 30 months after the first filing in 1995.

During this time Blencoe was subjected to vast media coverage that contributed to the ruin of his career, and to his and his family's social and psychological hardship.

Judicial history

Blencoe challenged the delay of the Human Rights Commission in the British Columbia Supreme Court on the basis of denial of natural justice. The court dismissed his challenge.

Blencoe appealed to the British Columbia Court of Appeal on the basis that the delay of the hearing for over 30 months was a violation of his right to "security of person" under section 7 of the Charter. The Court found in favour of Blencoe and ordered the charges against him to be stayed. The Court held that the delay stigmatized him and caused undue harm to him and his family, which violated his rights under section 7 of the Charter.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal (BCCA) is the highest appellate court in the province of British Columbia, Canada. It was established in 1910 following the 1907 Court of Appeal Act.

Security of the person is a basic entitlement guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948. It is also a human right explicitly mentioned and protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, the Constitution of Canada, the Constitution of South Africa and other laws around the world.

The issues appealed to the Supreme Court were:

Whether the delay violated Blencoe's section 7 rights.
Whether the delay violated the administrative law rule against undue delay.

In a five-to-four decision, the Court overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal, and held that the delay did not violate the Charter or administrative law.

Reasons of the court

Justice Bastarache, writing for the majority, dismissed Blencoe's claim and held that the tribunal should proceed.

Tribunal person or institution with the authority to judge, adjudicate or determine claims or disputes

A tribunal, generally, is any person or institution with authority to judge, adjudicate on, or determine claims or disputes—whether or not it is called a tribunal in its title. For example, an advocate who appears before a court with a single judge could describe that judge as 'their tribunal'. Many governmental bodies that are titled 'tribunals' are so described to emphasize that they are not courts of normal jurisdiction. For example, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda is a body specially constituted under international law; in Great Britain, employment tribunals are bodies set up to hear specific employment disputes. In many cases, the word tribunal implies a judicial body with a lesser degree of formality than a court, to which the normal rules of evidence and procedure may not apply, and whose presiding officers are frequently neither judges nor magistrates. Private judicial bodies are also often styled 'tribunals'. However, the word tribunal is not conclusive of a body's function–for example, in Great Britain, the Employment Appeal Tribunal is a superior court of record.

Section 7

Justice Bastarache examines the applicability of section 7. He finds that section 7 can extend "beyond the sphere of criminal law, at least where there is 'state action which directly engages the justice system and its administration'."^[1]

The process of analyzing section 7, states Bastarache, has two steps. First, it must be determined if there has been a violation of life, liberty, or security of person. Second, the violation must be shown to be contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.

Bastarache examined the meaning of "liberty" and "security of person". "Liberty", he argues, is related to personal autonomy. It is "engaged where state compulsions or prohibitions affect important and fundamental life choices." "Security of person" concerns psychological harm. It must be established that the state caused actual psychological harm, and that there have been serious injuries.

Considering Blencoe's claims, Bastarache found that there was no violation of liberty as the delay did not affect any fundamental life choices. There was also no violation of security of person as the harm was caused by the accusations not by the delay itself, which did not have much effect one way or another.

Administrative delay

The issue identified by Bastarache was "whether the delay in this case could amount to a denial of natural justice even where the respondent's ability to have a fair hearing has not been compromised." He dismissed the possibility that the trial was not fair as he saw no evidence to suggest that Blencoe was not able to provide a full answer and defence.

Bastarache considered whether the delay violated natural justice by causing serious harm to Blencoe. He found that the harm only amounted to personal hardship and was not serious.

He then considered whether the delay violated natural justice by bringing the Human Rights Commission into disrepute. The Court noted that many of the delays were contributed to by Blencoe or consented to by him. Consequently, the Commission was not brought into disrepute.

Dissent

Justice LeBel, in dissent, held that there was a violation of administrative law; however, he did not consider this to be a Charter issue.

Related Research Articles

R v Morgentaler, [1988] 1 SCR 30 was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which held that the abortion provision in the Criminal Code was unconstitutional because it violated a woman's right under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") to security of person. Since this ruling, there have been no criminal laws regulating abortion in Canada.

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada. There are three types of protection within the section: the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Denials of these rights are constitutional only if the denials do not breach what is referred to as fundamental justice.

Reference Re BC Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 SCR 486 was a landmark reference submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the constitutionality of the British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act. The decision established one of the first principles of fundamental justice in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter"), beyond mere natural justice, by requiring a fault component for all offences with penal consequences. The decision also proved important and controversial for establishing fundamental justice as more than a procedural right similar to due process, but also protects substantive rights even though such rights were counter to the intent of the initial drafters of the Charter.

Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") is the section of the Constitution of Canada that lists what the Charter calls "fundamental freedoms" theoretically applying to everyone in Canada, regardless of whether they are a Canadian citizen, or an individual or corporation. These freedoms can be held against actions of all levels of government and are enforceable by the courts. The fundamental freedoms are freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.

Gosselin v Quebec (AG) [2002] 4 SCR 429, 2002 SCC 84, is the first claim under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to a right to an adequate level of social assistance. The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the Charter challenge against a Quebec law excluding citizens under age 30 from receiving full social security benefits.

R v Clay [2003] 3 S.C.R. 735, 2003 SCC 75 is a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutionality of the prohibition to possess marijuana. The accused claimed that his section 7 Charter rights were violated. The Court dismissed the claim.

Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Canadian Constitution that protects a person's legal rights in criminal and penal matters. This includes both criminal as well as regulatory offences, as it provides rights for those accused by the state for public offences. There are nine enumerated rights protected in section 11.

Rodriguez v British Columbia (AG), [1993] 3 SCR 519 is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision where the prohibition of assisted suicide was challenged as contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") by a terminally ill woman, Sue Rodriguez. In a 5–4 decision, the Court upheld the provision in the Criminal Code.

Multani v Commission scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 256, 2006 SCC 6 is a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in which the Court struck down an order of a Quebec school authority, that prohibited a Sikh child from wearing a kirpan to school, as a violation of freedom of religion under section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This order could not be saved under section 1 of the Charter.

Dunmore v Ontario (AG), 2001 SCC 94 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the constitutional right to freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter"). The Court held that the lack of a positive framework that protected farm workers from employer reprisals for exercising their associational rights under the Charter constituted a "substantial interference" of their right to freedom of association. The Ontario government responded with the Agricultural Employees Protection Act, which extended only to agricultural workers and prohibited employer reprisals against employees exercising their rights under section 2(d) of the Charter.

Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Assn v Douglas College, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 570 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision regarding the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal.

R v Wong, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 36, is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the evidence obtained by electronic video surveillance conducted without authorization. The Court held that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a hotel room. This expectation does not depend on whether those persons were engaging in illegal activities. Therefore, individuals can expect that agents of the state will not engage in warrantless video surveillance. Electronic surveillance without authorization violates Section Eight of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, for this particular case, the Supreme Court held that the police acted in good faith and had reasonable and probable ground to believe criminal activities were committed. The surveillance without authorization was a result of misunderstanding. Hence, acceptance of the surveillance as evidences will not bring the administration of justice into disrepute under Section Twenty-four of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, found under the "Legal rights" heading in the Charter, guarantees the right against arbitrary detainment and imprisonment. Section nine states:

Syndicat Northcrest v Amselem [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551 was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that attempted to define freedom of religion under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Although the Supreme Court split on their definition, the majority advocated tolerating a practice where the individual sincerely feels it is connected to religion, regardless of whether the practice is required by a religious authority.

Aubry v Éditions Vice-Versa Inc, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 591, was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in which the claimant, Pascale Claude Aubry, brought an action against Éditions Vice-Versa for publishing a photo taken of her in public. She claimed the photographing was a violation of her right to privacy under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. The Court held that under Quebec law a photographer can take photographs in public places but may not publish the picture unless permission has been obtained from the subject.

Lavoie v Canada, [2002] 1 SCR 769, 2002 SCC 23 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on whether preference on basis of citizenship infringed equality guarantee under section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court found that the federal Public Service Employment Act (PSEA), which gave preference to citizens when referring to departments, was discriminatory. The violation was saved under section 1 of the Charter as a reasonable limitation on equality rights.

R v Bryan 2007 SCC 12 is a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on freedom of expression and Canadian federal elections. The Court upheld a law that prevented the publicizing of election results from some ridings before the polls closed in others.

R v Grant, 2009 SCC 32 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section 9, section 10 and section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter"). The Court created a number of factors to consider when determining whether a person had been detained for the purpose of sections 9 and 10 of the Charter. The Court also created a new test for determining whether evidence obtained by a Charter breach should be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, replacing the Collins test.

References

↑ para. 46

External links

Full text of Supreme Court of Canada decision available at LexUM and CanLII

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[1] ra. 46