P.E.I. Music v. Gov't. P.E.I. & HRC, 2011 PECA 18

In P.E.I. Music v. Gov't. P.E.I. & HRC, 2011 PECA 18, the Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal considered whether the statutory one-year limitation period in section 22(2)(b) of the P.E.I. Human Rights Act begins to run on the date of the alleged act, or when the material facts upon which the complaint is based have been discovered or ought to have been discovered by a complainant with the exercise of reasonable diligence, as per the common law discoverability rule. The Court found that the common law discoverability rule applies to the Act, so the respondents were not barred from bringing their suit by the statutory limitation period.

In 1991, the Liberal Government legalized video gambling, and through the Atlantic Lottery Corporation, licensed P.E.I. Music to supply and maintain video lottery terminals (VLTs) in bars and stores. In 2002, the Conservative Government took over the VLT business from P.E.I. Music and cancelled their license by legislation. P.E.I. Music was not compensated, although other retailers whose licenses were canceled were. In April 2007, P.E.I. Music, whose owners were well known Liberal Party supporters, made a complaint to the Human Rights Commission that the Government had discriminated against them in a matter of employment on the basis of political belief. The Commission dismissed the complaint on the basis of the s. 22(2)(a) statutory limitation period, and P.E.I. Music's application for judicial review was then granted by the applications judge. The Government appealed to the P.E.I. Court of Appeal.

Applying a purposive approach to the question of statutory interpretation, the Court noted that human rights legislation has a special status above other laws of the province. The Court reasoned that, given that human rights legislation should be interpreted in a “liberal and purposive manner” and such legislation’s quasi-constitutional nature, it would be “unjust to a claimant to terminate the cause of action before the claimant becomes aware of it”. Since the complainant bears the onus of proving discrimination, and this can only be done with knowledge of the impugned act, if follows that the common law discoverability rule must apply to s. 22(2)(b).

November 24, 2011
Link to Decision

Catherine Marchant & Alexa Mingo
*