Case information

Civil procedure — Pleadings — Striking pleadings — Parties — Addition — Costs — Advance costs – Whether striking applicant’s petition for judicial review was an error — Whether declining to add parties to applicant’s petition for judicial review was an error — Whether applicant entitled to advance costs of judicial review petition or appeal.

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.

The applicant applied for a certificate allowing him to teach in British Columbia. In the course of the application process, the Teacher Regulation Brach (“TRB”) developed concerns about the applicant’s proficiency in English and required him to submit the results of a proficiency test. The applicant refused to take the test and complained to the Human Rights Tribunal (“HRT”) that the requirement to do so discriminated against him on the basis of his ancestry, colour, place of origin, and race.

The HRT found that there was no reasonable prospect that the applicant could show discrimination on the available evidence, and that the requirement was justifiable in any event. It dismissed the complaint.

The applicant sought judicial review, where he sought payment of advance costs to fund the litigation, to add additional parties to the case, and to rely on an argument he did not advance at the HRT. As there was no record from the HRT to support the applicant’s argument, his petition was struck. Because the petition lacked merit and was dismissed, the applicant could not meet the test for payment of advance costs, and the application to add parties was moot.

The Court of Appeal agreed and dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application of the test to strike pleadings, no evidence of bias, and no breach of procedural fairness. The applicant again applied for advance costs, which was dismissed as the appeal lacked merit. He further sought to strike the respondents’ appeal factums; this application was dismissed as there was no legal basis to do so.