Horrocks was a SCC in 2021 where it was decided that human rights tribunals no longer have jurisdiction over human rights complaints in unionized work environments and must instead be dealt with under the collective agreement with the employees union. <\/p>\nHorrocks: Northern Regional Health Authority v. Horrocks, 2021 SCC 42 (CanLII), <https:\/\/canlii.ca\/t\/jjtkc<\/a>>, retrieved on 2024-01-04 <\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, Sept. 20, 2023 <\/p>\n\n\n\n Between: Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission (appellant) V. Nova Scotia Government and General Employees Union, Halifax Regional Police Association, Amalgamated Transit Union Local 508, Canadian Union of Public Employees, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 927, Halifax Professional Firefighters Association, International Association of Firefighters, Local 268, Nova Scotia Federation of Labour and The Canadian Association of Counsel to employees. <\/p>\n\n\n\n On September 20, 2023 almost two years after Northern Regional Health Authority v. Horrocks,<\/em><\/a> <\/em>2021 SCC the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal allowed Deborah Carleton<\/a> to return to the Board of Inquiry for her human rights complaint.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Police officer Deborah Carleton has Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) which she sustained in the workplace and alleges that she is treated differently than her coworkers who sustained physical injuries. Carleton filed her human rights complaint in 2017 and by 2021 after her evidence was heard, the Supreme Court of Canada made the Horrocks<\/em> decision. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The decision ruled that complaints made in a unionized workplace could no longer be heard by the human rights commission and that the jurisdiction would lie in the collective agreement where a labour arbitrator would preside over the case. In March of this year, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal heard Carelton\u2019s appeal that the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission should regain jurisdiction of her case. <\/p>\n\n\n\n On September 20, Justice Cindy A. Bourgeois allowed Carleton’s appeal. Justice Bourgeois sets out to explain that the Horrocks<\/em> case took place in Manitoba where their human rights code \u201cdid not demonstrate a clear legislative intent for concurrent jurisdiction of complaints arising in unionized workplaces.\u201d (citation) The task at hand for the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal in this case is to understand if there is legislative intent for concurrent jurisdiction in Nova Scotia. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Bourgeois came to the conclusion that based on the <\/em>Human Rights Act in Nova Scotia,<\/em> specifically s.29(4)(d)<\/a> it demonstrated a legislative intent for concurrent jurisdiction for labour arbitrators and the Human Rights Commision. She concludes that the Board of Inquiry made a mistake to conclude that Carlton\u2019s case would fall under Horrocks<\/em>. The judge allowed Carelton\u2019s appeal and moved that it should be brought back to the Board of Inquiry to complete her complaint. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Dissenting on this matter was Justice Micheal Wood. Justice Wood agreed with Justice Bourgeois regarding her summary and interpretation of the Horrocks decision, and how it relates to Manitoba\u2019s Human Rights Act<\/em><\/a>.<\/em> However, he does not agree with her conclusion regarding the legislative history of the Nova Scotia Human Rights Act,<\/em> and himself believes that it does not demonstrate a legislative intent to allow concurrent jurisdiction. Justice Wood cites the Supreme Court which lays out three instances in which a legislature can demonstrate its intent for arbitral jurisdiction, one way being that the legislature can expressly state in the tribunal\u2019s enabling statute, which Justice Wood points out, no Nova Scotia legislature mentions concurrent jurisdiction. The second way being, by enacting a statutory scheme which discloses this intention. This is where Justice Bourgeois pointed out that s. 29 (4)(d) of the Nova Scotia Human Rights Act <\/em>fulfils this requirement, however Justice Wood disagrees. Instead, he points out that the Supreme Court only mentioned the British Columbia Human Rights Code<\/em><\/a>, Canada Labour Code <\/em><\/a>and the Canada Human Rights Act<\/em><\/a> <\/em>and to compare the Nova Scotia Human Rights Act<\/em> to these, is to interpret it wrong. The third and final circumstance, that if the legislative history plainly shows the legislature intended concurrency. Justice Wood concludes that nothing in Nova Scotia legislative history shows that concurrent jurisdiction be allowed in these cases. Justice Wood concludes by saying he disagrees with the majority opinion and would have dismissed the appeal. <\/p>\n\n\n\n What does this mean for Horrocks<\/em>? It\u2019s hard to say, but something we can take from this case is how different Horrocks<\/em> may look in each province. The Supreme Court of Canada stated in the Horrocks<\/em> decision, three human rights acts that in at least some cases could allow concurrent jurisdiction. British Columbia was the only provincial act mentioned, and the only act that so far explicitly states concurrent jurisdiction is allowed. However, what Justice Bourgeois is stating in this case is that Nova Scotia also has the statutory scheme that allows joint jurisdiction. While the Supreme Court nor this case mentioned Alberta\u2019s Human Rights Act<\/em><\/a>,<\/em> s.22(1.1) empowers the director of the Human Rights Commission to not accept a complaint if the complaint could be dealt with elsewhere, which also opens the door to Horrocks<\/em>. This case mentions specifically the Manitoba Human Rights Act<\/em>, which is how the Horrocks<\/em> decision came to light, Ontario has very similar wording to Manitoba’s act. All this is to say, what the state of Horrocks<\/em> will be in Nova Scotia is still largely up in the air, but it could change relatively quickly and it will be integral for us to keep our eyes open.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\nImportant update for Nova Scotia regarding Horrocks: <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/equitywatch.ca\/equitywatch\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/Screen-Shot-2024-01-04-at-12.40.53-PM.png\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/equitywatch.ca\/equitywatch\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/Screen-Shot-2024-01-04-at-12.42.09-PM.png\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/equitywatch.ca\/equitywatch\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/Screen-Shot-2024-01-04-at-12.43.58-PM.png\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/equitywatch.ca\/equitywatch\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/Screen-Shot-2024-01-04-at-12.45.38-PM.png\")