Christine Shupe contacted the Nova Scotia Human Rights Fee in 2018 saying she’d been sexually harassed by her former employer, Wyatt Redmond, on the recycling depot she labored at.
Employees on the fee investigated the criticism over three years, and the case was lastly referred to a board of inquiry — the ultimate stage within the criticism course of, which entails a trial-like public listening to with witnesses and cross-examinations.
However final week, Shupe’s case was dismissed as a result of the employer named within the criticism, Beaver Enviro Depot, doesn’t legally exist.
Whereas the constructing the place Shupe labored on Herring Cove Street in Halifax has indicators outdoors bearing the title Beaver Enviro Depot, the enterprise is registered as 2557617 Nova Scotia Restricted.
In a choice dated March 22, board of inquiry lawyer Benjamin Perryman wrote that the fee failed to analyze whether or not Beaver Enviro Depot was a authorized entity — one thing that might have been confirmed by merely checking the Registry of Joint Inventory Corporations, the province’s official registry of companies.
“Had the fee carried out commonplace due diligence … this case would have been averted,” Perryman wrote.
He notes that whereas complainants are given an consumption kind to fill out, it’s the fee’s workers who write the official criticism.
“For my part, it’s affordable to anticipate the fee to carry out any such due diligence given its experience, sources and accountability for the human rights criticism course of. That is particularly so provided that many human rights complainants are self-represented.”
Complainants, Perryman wrote, “don’t perceive the niceties of company authorized character.”
Shupe’s allegations of sexual harassment haven’t been examined in court docket.
‘Thrown out like rubbish’
Shupe mentioned when she discovered her criticism had been tossed out because of the fee’s error, she was in disbelief.
“I checked out that and mentioned, ‘This can’t be true, like … this isn’t what I am studying.’
“It is simply so unfair — and I do know life is unfair. However when you will have every thing proper right here in entrance of you and also you belief individuals, and also you get nothing. You are still thrown out like rubbish.”
Shupe has contacted a lawyer, Andrea MacNevin, to discover her choices.
MacNevin mentioned she could file an enchantment, however at first blush, Perryman’s determination seems to be right on all of the factors of legislation.
Submitting a brand new criticism might not be doable as a result of the Nova Scotia Human Rights Fee requires individuals to file their criticism inside 12 months of the discrimination occurring.
Suing the fee may also be an choice, however MacNevin mentioned that is a “problematic space of legislation,” as a result of the fee is a part of the authorized system itself.
Shupe says she’s decided to proceed to hunt justice, about each her preliminary criticism and the fee’s dealing with of her case.
“Human rights is just not going to get away with this.… I would like somebody to assist me combat this.”
Enterprise proprietor responds
Reached at his enterprise on Wednesday, Redmond, the proprietor of the recycling depot, denied the allegation of sexual harassment.
“100 per cent no. 100 per cent no. No no no no no,” he mentioned.
Concerning the criticism’s dismissal, he mentioned he was “glad it was gone,” but additionally mentioned he needed it to be resolved.
“I needed it to undergo, I wish to get it resolved. I would like it to come back to an finish, the tip that I knew would come.”
Human Rights Act does not permit change
When the criticism was referred to the board of inquiry, the board requested the fee to offer the Registry of Joint Shares details about Beaver Enviro Depot.
That is when fee workers seemingly realized the error, and on March 5, the fee utilized to the board to right the respondent’s title on the criticism kind.
However Perryman dominated that, beneath the Human Rights Act, board chairs usually are not allowed to make amendments to a criticism.
“That is an especially unlucky end result. Complaints and complainants needs to be heard. An inquiry shouldn’t be dismissed with out an adjudication of the deserves,” he writes.
“If the board was empowered to make guidelines to control its processes or to right defects in kind, any such scenario would possible have been averted. However the Human Rights Act doesn’t give boards of inquiry such powers.
“Regrettably, I need to dismiss this criticism though I don’t view this as a simply end result within the circumstances.”
Fee ‘not good’
The Nova Scotia Human Rights Fee declined an interview request.
In an emailed assertion, spokesperson Jeff Overmars mentioned, “Administration of the act by fee workers is just not infallible. The fee is just not good however we all the time attempt to offer high-quality, equitable and truthful service to the general public.”
Concerning the restrictions of the act that prevented the board from continuing with the criticism, Overmars mentioned: “There are limitations to the Nova Scotia Human Rights Act that the fee want to see addressed, as a result of the act is over 50 years previous.
“The flexibility for board chairs to amend criticism types — in a scenario reminiscent of Ms. Shupe’s — can be amongst these. The fee hopes to have all proposed amendments go to public session within the close to future.”
