Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Administrative law — Judicial review — Procedure — Evidence — Prince Edward Island Human Rights Tribunal — Discrimination on the basis of race — Stare decisis — Whether the Court of Appeal required direct evidence of discrimination — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the decision that the rules of stare decisis do not apply to tribunals dealing with quasi-constitutional issues — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the judicial review judge’s decision to accept the panel’s decision not to hear Mr. Ayangma on evidence submitted to the panel after the hearing concluded.

Mr. Ayangma applied for employment for the senior position of Program Director Telehealth with Infoway, a not-for-profit corporation created following a study carried out by the Canadian provincial, territorial and federal first ministers in 2000 to foster an accelerate the development and use of a pan-Canadian electronic health record network. Although Mr. Ayangma was asked to apply for the position by a search firm, Infoway’s interviewer concluded that Mr. Ayangma was not qualified for the position.

As Mr. Ayangma is black and the successful candidate is white, Mr. Ayangma filed a complaint with the Prince Edward Island Human Rights Commission alleging that Infoway had discriminated against him in a matter of employment on the basis of his colour and his ethnic or national origin. After years of interlocutory proceedings regarding jurisdiction, a panel was appointed. During the hearing, the panel directed Infoway to file documentation on the composition of its workforce. It filed the information as ordered. The panel found that Mr. Ayangma had made out a prima facie case, but concluded that Infoway had not hired Mr. Ayangma for the position because he did not have the necessary qualifications, experience with large projects, or skills to carry out that senior position. Mr. Ayangma did not apply for reconsideration of that decision. His application for judicial review was dismissed, as was his subsequent appeal.