Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Statutory timelines under the Human Rights Act for seeking judicial review were strictly enforced.

• The court determined that both filing and service of the application must occur within 30 days of the dismissal decision.

• Memorial University was found to be a necessary party and required to be served, despite not receiving initial notice from the Commission.

• The applicant’s failure to meet mandatory procedural deadlines deprived the court of jurisdiction to hear the matter.

• No legislative or inherent authority exists for the court to extend or vary the statutory time limits.

• The application for judicial review was dismissed, with no costs or damages awarded.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and procedural history

The applicant was an employee of Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador. In 2021, the university implemented a mandatory mask and vaccine policy in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The applicant requested an exemption from the vaccination policy on religious grounds, which was denied. As a result, the applicant was placed on unpaid leave and subsequently resigned. The applicant then filed a human rights complaint with the Human Rights Commission of Newfoundland and Labrador, alleging a failure by the university to accommodate his religious beliefs.

The Commission dismissed the complaint in March 2024. The applicant sought to challenge this dismissal, first by filing an application for leave to appeal and later by filing an application for judicial review. The application for judicial review was filed on June 26, 2024. Memorial University raised a preliminary issue, arguing that the statutory timelines for filing and serving the application for judicial review had not been met.

Legal issues and arguments

The primary legal issue was whether the application for judicial review was filed and served within the mandatory 30-day period required by section 33 of the Human Rights Act. Memorial University argued that it was a necessary party and that the failure to serve both the university and the Commission within the 30-day window was fatal to the application. The applicant contended that Memorial was not a necessary party and, alternatively, that the court should exercise discretion to allow the matter to proceed despite technical non-compliance. The Commission acknowledged the strict wording of the statute but suggested that some flexibility might be appropriate, especially for self-represented complainants.

Court’s analysis and findings

The court found that Memorial University was a necessary party to the proceedings, as the complaint was made against it and its interests were directly affected. The court interpreted section 33 of the Human Rights Act as requiring both the filing and service of the application for judicial review within 30 days of the dismissal decision. The court determined that these timelines were mandatory, not merely directory, and that there was no authority—either in the Rules of Court or in the court’s inherent jurisdiction—to extend or vary the statutory deadlines set by the Act.

Outcome

The court concluded that the applicant failed to comply with the mandatory statutory timelines for both filing and serving the application for judicial review. As a result, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the application and dismissed the case. No costs or damages were awarded to any party.