Case information

Civil procedure — Pleadings — Motion to strike — Human Rights — Discriminatory practices — Pattern evidence — Human rights commission bringing application alleging employer discriminated against terminated employee and alleging employer engaged in pattern of conduct of disregard for disabled employees’ rights — Court of King’s Bench granting employer’s motion to strike allegation of pattern of conduct — Court of Appeal allowing Commissioner’s appeal and holding pattern evidence presumptively admissible — What role should pattern or practice evidence, particularly evidence relating to resolved matters, serve in human rights proceedings? — What are the appropriate boundaries when interpreting quasi-constitutional legislation? — The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, 2018, S.S. 2018, c. S-24.2, s. 35(4).

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 respondent, Bradley Schumacher, was an employee of the applicant, Saskatchewan Power Corporation (“SaskPower”). After SaskPower terminated his employment, he filed a complaint with the respondent, Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (“Commission”), asserting that SaskPower had discriminated against him on the basis of disability and had failed to accommodate him. The Commission applied to the Court of King’s Bench for a hearing of Mr. Schumacher’s complaint. As part of the application, the Commissioner alleged that SaskPower engaged in a pattern of conduct that disregarded the rights of other disabled employees. SaskPower applied to strike the paragraph in which the allegation was made. The issue involved interpreting the provision of the The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code that allows the court “to receive and accept evidence led for the purpose of establishing a pattern or practice of resistance to or disregard or denial of any of the rights secured by” that code (s. 35(4)). The chambers judge allowed SaskPower’s application and struck the impugned paragraph. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the Commission’s appeal. It concluded that the chambers judge erred by narrowing the scope of evidence that could be tendered under s. 35(4) and in striking the paragraph. It held that such evidence is presumptively admissible.