Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• David Power's application for leave to appeal a Human Rights Board of Inquiry decision was dismissed on preliminary timeliness grounds.
   
• Section 42(3) of the Human Rights Act, 2010 required the application to be filed within thirty days of receipt of the board's order.
   
• Justice Conway found that the 2023 Merits Decision was a final order despite a separate, later decision on remedy.
   
• Bifurcation of the merits and remedy phases did not extend the statutory appeal period, in the court's view.
   
• No statutory or rule-based authority existed to extend or vary the mandatory thirty-day time limit.
   
• Costs were awarded against the Applicant in favour of the successful Respondent, Newfoundland and Labrador Health Services.
   

Facts of the case

David Power filed a human rights complaint against Eastern Regional Integrated Health Authority, a predecessor employer of Newfoundland and Labrador Health Services, alleging harassment and discrimination in the workplace. The complaint was referred to a Board of Inquiry, which issued a written decision on the merits on April 6, 2023, finding no age discrimination under section 14 of the Human Rights Act, 2010 but finding discrimination based on harassment under section 17. The Board of Inquiry gave the parties thirty days to reach an agreement on remedy, failing which it would issue a separate decision. No agreement was reached, and the Board issued a Remedy Decision on October 21, 2024. On November 18, 2024, Power filed an Originating Application seeking judicial review of the Merits Decision, and on July 18, 2025, he filed the Application for leave to appeal that is the subject of this judgment. The Respondent raised a preliminary objection that the leave application was filed outside the statutory time limit.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The central provision is section 42 of the Human Rights Act, 2010, S.N.L. 2010, c. H-13.1, which governs appeals of Board of Inquiry decisions. Section 42(2) provides that where the grounds of appeal involve a question of fact or mixed fact and law, "an appeal shall not be made without leave of a judge of the Trial Division." Section 42(3) requires that an application for leave "shall be made by way of originating application, without giving notice to other interested parties, within 30 days of the receipt by the appellant of the order of the board of inquiry." The court also considered Rule 58.03 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1986, which sets out timelines for seeking leave to appeal where a statute does not otherwise specify one, and Rule 38.01, which permitted the court to determine the preliminary timeliness issue before a full hearing on the merits of the leave application.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice Conway determined it was appropriate to resolve the timeliness question as a preliminary issue under Rule 38.01, consistent with the approach endorsed in Ind-Rec Highway Services Ltd. v. Miawpukek Band. The Applicant argued that because the Board of Inquiry's process was bifurcated into merits and remedy phases, the thirty-day clock under section 42(3) did not begin until the Remedy Decision was issued in October 2024. The court rejected this argument, finding that the April 2023 Merits Decision was a final decision on the discrimination allegations, with nothing left for the Board to decide on that question; only the separate issue of damages remained outstanding. The court reasoned that treating the appeal period as running from an eventual remedy decision, or even a later settlement, would undermine finality in the complaint process. Justice Conway further found no meaningful distinction between "order" and "decision" as used in section 42, and alternatively concluded that even if the terms differed, the Merits Decision was both a decision and an order for these purposes. Applying the factors from Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Public Complaints Commissioner v. Oates and the Supreme Court of Canada's guidance in Blueberry River Indian Band v. Canada, the court held that the thirty-day time limit in section 42 is mandatory, given the legislature's evident intent to ensure finality in resolving human rights complaints. Finally, relying on Eastern Regional Integrated Health Authority v. Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador and YBC Development Limited v. Torbay (Town), the court concluded it had no jurisdiction under the Act or the Rules to extend or vary this statutory time limit, since the Rules cannot override a time limit fixed by legislation.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court found that the Applicant failed to meet the mandatory thirty-day statutory deadline for seeking leave to appeal the Merits Decision, and that the court had no authority to extend that deadline. The preliminary issue was accordingly decided in favour of the Respondent, Newfoundland and Labrador Health Services, and the Application for leave to appeal was dismissed as statute-barred. As the successful party, the Respondent was awarded costs against the Applicant in accordance with Column 3 of the Scale of Costs under Rule 55 of the Rules of the Supreme Court; the decision does not specify a dollar amount for these costs.