|
Torts - Discrimination. Haytham Elzayat v. Rogers Communication
In Haytham Elzayat v. Rogers Communication (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, this brought against "an order striking his Statement of Claim (“the claim”) and dismissing his action".
Here the court applies the Bhadauria doctrine that discrimination is not a tort:[8] First, the appellant argues that the motions judge erred because the specific damages he seeks cannot be awarded by a human rights commission. The appellant argues that the Superior Court of Justice is able to adjudicate his claim, and it is the appropriate forum for him to seek relief. We do not accept this submission. The motions judge found that the claim failed to disclose a viable cause of action because there exists no common law tort of discrimination, and thus the Superior Court could not award damages to the appellant against the respondent: see Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology v. Bhadauria, 1981 CanLII 29 (SCC), [1981] 2 S.C.R. 181. According to the motions judge, the respondent, a federally regulated company, came within the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6, and such legislation did not allow complainants to resort to court actions for relief. We see no basis for appellate intervention.
|
