News release

Commission Can Set Own Rules

Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission

A decision released today by the Nova Scotia Supreme Court affirms that the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission can set its own procedures when it investigates complaints of discrimination.

"The ruling is good as it clarifies once and for all that the commission has the right to determine its practices during a human rights investigation," said Maureen Shebib, legal counsel for the commission. "The decision also reinforces that the investigation of a human rights complaint must be impartial."

Last week, the commission argued before the court that lawyers representing any party to a human rights complaint must be excluded from witness interviews during the complaint investigation as their presence may have an impact and a chilling effect on witnesses while they provide information.

In his decision, Justice John Davison wrote, "....it is inconceivable to me that the legislature intended a witness to dictate the procedures the commission must follow in searching for facts. The manner in which information is to be furnished ... is for the commission to decide."

Davison added: "...the commission can adopt its own procedure for investigating the relevant facts as long as it doesn't contravene the (Human Rights) act."

The matter came before the Supreme Court as part of the investigation into a complaint made by Archie Kaiser. He alleged discrimination based on political affiliation when he was not appointed to provincial boards. A witness, Ian MacDonald, had wanted a government lawyer to sit in on his interview with the human rights officer investigating Mr. Kaiser's complaint. Justice Davison states the refusal by Mr. MacDonald to be interviewed without government lawyer Randall Duplak present is a refusal to furnish information to the investigator.

Justice Davison also rejected the argument that the Human Rights Act requires only the furnishing of information, not a right for the commission to conduct interviews. A witness can invite a lawyer who is completely independent of the complaint to sit in on an interview.

"To suggest a witness could simply write out a statement or answer programmed interrogatories gives no thought to the need of the commission to exercise care in being thorough with respect to their inquiries," Justice Davison wrote.