Lindsay A. Waddell of Moore Edgar Lyster LLP and Heather Hoiness of the Office of the Human Rights Commissioner of B.C. successfully represented the Commissioner in an application for leave to intervene in the B.C. Court of Appeal. The appeal concerns the proper interpretation of family status discrimination under the B.C. Human Rights Code. The Chambers Justice agreed that the Commissioner has a unique and broad perspective and that her participation in the appeal on the statutory interpretation issue would be of assistance to the Court. Lindsay and Heather will also represent the Commissioner at the upcoming appeal.
Gibralter Mines Ltd. v. Harvey, 2021 BCSC 927
Lindsay A. Waddell successfully represented the Human Rights Commissioner for British Columbia in the Commissioner’s first application for leave to intervene since her office was created. The Commissioner sought leave to intervene in the proceeding – a petition for judicial review of a BC Human Rights Tribunal decision involving the interpretation of family status discrimination under section 13 of the BC Human Rights Code - on the basis that the interpretation of family status discrimination under the Code clearly engages her statutory mandate. Mr. Justice Gomery found that the Commissioner had a direct and obvious interest in the legal issue, and that her submissions would assist the Court. Lindsay will represent the Commissioner at the hearing of the judicial review later this month.
The Parent obo the Child v. The School District, 2020 BCCA 333
Lindsay A. Waddell and Sara Hanson successfully represented the Respondent, the Parent obo the Child, in upholding the chamber judge’s decision which found that the BC Human Rights Tribunal erred by applying the incorrect legal test for determining whether the Parent could rely on lawyer advice error to allow his late-filed complaint to proceed in the public interest under s. 22(3) of the BC Human Rights Code. The Court of Appeal further agreed with the Parent’s submission that the incorrect legal test was an extricable error of law that rendered the decision as a whole patently unreasonable as defined in section 59(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act.
College of Midwives of British Columbia v. MaryMoon, 2020 BCCA 224
In College of Midwives of British Columbia v. MaryMoon, 2020 BCCA 224, the BC Court of Appeal upheld a prohibition on the use of occupational titles reserved to members of health professions colleges to describe a person’s work as a justified limitation on freedom of expression.
Lindsay Waddell and Daniel McBain of Moore Edgar Lyster LLP represented the intervenor, the College of Speech and Hearing Health Professionals of British Columbia (“CSHBC”). CSHBC argued that the prohibition was necessary to enable members of the public to identify who is, and who is not, a regulated professional, and that this was particularly important to newly regulated professions that do not have the benefit of widespread public recognition. Without a restriction on title usage, newly regulated professions would not be able to build the necessary public awareness and health care consumers would be vulnerable to unqualified and unregulated individuals.
Read the decision here.