Does a Human Rights Tribunal have a recognized expertise in fact-finding and adjudication but not in the law?
Alberta, Canada
The following excerpt is from Bigsby v. Alberta, 2002 ABQB 574 (CanLII):
Human rights tribunals have a recognized expertise in fact-finding and adjudication but not in questions of law: Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop, 1993 CanLII 164 (SCC), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 554 per Lamer C.J., for the majority, agreeing with remarks made by La Forest J. at para. 45; Ross v. New Brunswick District No. 15, 1996 CanLII 237 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 825 at para. 28.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
How have decisions by the Chief Commissioner of Human Rights and Human Rights have been treated in the context of discrimination cases? (Alberta, Canada)
What is the “signal advantage” given to a primary finder of fact at a human rights tribunal? (Alberta, Canada)
How have the courts treated the issue of human trafficking in the context of human rights legislation? (Alberta, Canada)
What are the obligations of the sending state towards the detained person under the Vienna Convention on Human Rights? (Alberta, Canada)
What is the range of general and pecuniary damages for discrimination against an employer in a human rights case? (Alberta, Canada)
What is the test for deferential deference to a human rights panel? (Alberta, Canada)
What is the burden of proof in a human rights case? (Alberta, Canada)
What is the difference between human rights legislation and the law of tort? (Alberta, Canada)
How to balance the Charter-protected rights of mobility rights and freedom of association with those of the public good? (Alberta, Canada)
Is a draft human rights settlement agreement enforceable? (Alberta, Canada)
