Seneca College v. Bhadauria

Seneca College v. Bhadauria

Because the Ontario Human Rights Code provides a comprehensive enforcement regime including complaint procedures, boards of inquiry empowered to award remedies, and broad appeals to the courts, the Code both precludes a private civil action founded directly on its breach and forecloses judicial creation of a novel common-law tort for refusal to recruit or employ on racial grounds; the plaintiff was required to use the Code's procedures and the common-law action failed.

Citation
[1981] 2 SCR 181
Parties
Defendant Respondent Appellant: Board of Governors of the Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology; Plaintiff Appellant Respondent: Pushpa Bhadauria
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 June 1981
Procedural Posture
Tort Discrimination (employment) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Ontario Court of Appeal; Determination on Demurrer (motion Under Ontario Rule 126)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of Ontario Court of Appeal set aside; action dismissed and judgment of Callaghan J. restored
Legal Topics
Discrimination, Racial Origin, Common Law Torts, Statutory Remedies, Enforcement and Remedies Under Statutory Schemes
Source Language
English
Torts Human Rights Law Employment Law Administrative Law Discrimination Racial Origin Common Law Torts Statutory Remedies +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Board of Governors of the Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology

Defendant Respondent Appellant

Pushpa Bhadauria

Plaintiff Appellant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tort Discrimination (employment) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Ontario Court of Appeal; Determination on Demurrer (motion Under Ontario Rule 126)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether repeated denial of employment on racial origin gives rise to a common-law tort
  2. 2 Whether a civil right of action flows directly from breach of the Ontario Human Rights Code
  3. 3 Whether the Code’s enforcement scheme excludes common-law remedies

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Ontario Human Rights Code provides a comprehensive enforcement regime including complaint procedures, boards of inquiry empowered to award remedies, and broad appeals to the courts, the Code both precludes a private civil action founded directly on its breach and forecloses judicial creation of a novel common-law tort for refusal to recruit or employ on racial grounds; the plaintiff was required to use the Code's procedures and the common-law action failed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of Ontario Court of Appeal set aside; action dismissed and judgment of Callaghan J. restored

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal set aside