Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The applicant sought a stay of an ongoing Alberta Human Rights Tribunal hearing pending judicial review of interlocutory decisions.

• Central issues included the Tribunal’s evidentiary rulings, particularly regarding expert evidence from Dr. Pachet and the denial of additional evidence and legal questions.

• The Court examined whether “rare and exceptional circumstances” justified intervention before the Tribunal’s final decision.

• The applicant argued that proceeding without judicial review of interlocutory decisions would irreparably harm him and result in an unfair hearing.

• The respondents maintained that the application was premature and that any concerns could be addressed after the Tribunal’s final decision.

• The Court ultimately found no exceptional circumstances warranting a stay and denied the application.

Background and facts

Stephen Dugandzic, a member of the Law Society of Alberta (LSA), has been on leave from practice since April 2020. In 2018, the LSA began an investigation into Dugandzic’s practice. Arising from that investigation, in December 2020, Dugandzic filed a human rights complaint against the LSA, alleging discrimination on the grounds of real and perceived mental and physical disabilities. On October 12, 2022, the Human Rights Commission directed a hearing into Dugandzic’s complaint. Dugandzic requested expedited hearing dates, which were granted. The hearing commenced in May 2023, and evidence was completed in February 2024, with the parties participating in 32 hearing days over nine months.

Dugandzic expressed significant concern about delays during the hearing, particularly in the Tribunal’s issuance of interlocutory rulings. All parties acknowledged that the delays exacerbated Dugandzic’s health concerns, and further delay would continue to impact his already significantly compromised condition.

On August 12, 2024, Dugandzic filed an application in the Court of King’s Bench for judicial review of interlocutory rulings made by the Tribunal on May 24, 2024, and July 4, 2024. The May 24, 2024, decision dismissed Dugandzic’s application to reopen proceedings to allow additional evidence to address Dr. Pachet’s evidence. The July 4, 2024, decision denied Dugandzic’s request to refer eight questions of law to the Court of King’s Bench under s 31 of the Alberta Human Rights Act. On January 8, 2025, Dugandzic amended his application for judicial review to include the Tribunal’s October 26, 2023, ruling qualifying Dr. Pachet as an expert and its January 24, 2024, ruling denying Dugandzic the opportunity to refer to Dr. Pachet’s clinical notes during cross-examination.

There was no date set for the hearing of Dugandzic’s judicial review application in the Court of King’s Bench. Dugandzic requested an expedited date, which was denied, but he intended to renew his request. The only steps remaining in the Tribunal hearing were closing submissions and the Tribunal’s ultimate decision, with a deadline for closing submissions set for February 14, 2025.

Dugandzic applied to the Tribunal for a stay of the hearing pending judicial review of the interlocutory decisions, which was dismissed on October 22, 2024 (Dugandzic v Law Society of Alberta, 2024 AHRC 124). Prior to that decision, Dugandzic filed an urgent application in the Court of King’s Bench seeking a stay of the Tribunal’s consideration of the stay application, which was also dismissed. Dugandzic then applied in Urgent Chambers for a stay of the hearing until judicial review of the interlocutory decisions had been heard and decided.

Dugandzic was concerned that if the Tribunal made its final decision before judicial review of the interlocutory decisions, the final decision would be based on a flawed evidentiary record. He argued that judicial review of the interlocutory decisions should occur before the Tribunal’s final decision to avoid being denied a fair hearing. He also expressed concern that if a re-hearing were ordered, it would be personally and irreparably devastating due to his health and financial situation.

Application for stay and legal arguments

Dugandzic argued that these circumstances constituted “extraordinary circumstances” obligating the Court to intervene and stay the hearing. The LSA maintained that the application was premature and that Dugandzic had not demonstrated rare and exceptional circumstances justifying intervention. The LSA argued that Dugandzic could make submissions to the Tribunal regarding the value or risk of relying on Dr. Pachet’s evidence and that the Tribunal should be permitted to render its final decision. If Dugandzic disagreed with the final decision, he could seek judicial review, and the Court of King’s Bench had broad remedial tools, including returning the matter to the Tribunal with directions regarding the evidence.

Court’s analysis and outcome

Justice Dilts considered whether the application met the standard of “rare and exceptional circumstances” required for judicial intervention in ongoing administrative proceedings. The Court reviewed relevant case law, emphasizing the principle of restraint and non-interference with ongoing administrative processes. The Court noted that concerns about procedural fairness or bias, the presence of important legal or constitutional issues, or even the consent of all parties to early court intervention were not, by themselves, exceptional circumstances permitting bypassing the administrative process.

The Court found that Dugandzic had not demonstrated that this was an extraordinary case warranting judicial intervention in the form of a stay. The Court stated that procedural fairness concerns regarding the admissibility or reliance on evidence are not exceptional circumstances that would warrant a stay before completion of the administrative process. The Tribunal should be allowed to fulfill its mandate, and all parties could then make informed decisions about next steps after the Tribunal’s final decision. The Court also noted that permitting the Tribunal to complete its work was likely to result in less duplication, less delay, and fewer wasted resources.

Conclusion

Dugandzic’s application in Urgent Chambers for a stay of the hearing pending judicial review of the Tribunal’s interlocutory decisions was denied. The Court found no exceptional circumstances to justify intervention before the Tribunal’s final decision. The successful parties in this application were the Alberta Human Rights Commission and the Law Society of Alberta; no monetary amount was ordered or awarded in this decision.