Charles Ferris
Legal Counsel, New Brunswick Human Rights Commission

Good afternoon, and I would certainly start off this afternoon by thanking a few people with respect to the Ross case. One of those is Tom Kuttner who following some of the initial work done on this case extended his services to the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission on a pro-bono basis in an outstanding fashion. In that same vein Neil Finklestein and Joel Richeler similarly extended their considerable expertise on Mr. Attis's behalf on a pro-bono basis. One of the issues that have been raised in the Ross case has been the issue of time and costs, and I would hazard a guess that a quarter to a third of the costs of this appeal was extended on that gratuitous basis. For that the Human Rights Commission is very grateful. I would also be remiss if I overlooked the fact that this was a single effort on the part of a fairly small Human Rights Commission.

The impact of this Ross decision on the mechanics of human rights in New Brunswick has indeed been quite remarkable. In my introduction of very capable speakers this afternoon, I thought it might be appropriate to touch briefly upon some of the impacts that it has had as this case worked its way through the various levels of judiciary. In the very early going of this case greater definition was given to the status of a person aggrieved. That however was broadened. The whole notion of education as a public service was very clearly defined, the ability of the Commission to concurrently carry out its education and compliance function was reinforced with the interpretation of reasonable apprehension of bias. In a more subtle sense, the case raised various serious issues in terms of how the Commission could best address issues of race discrimination, and I think the Commission has been and is continuing to grapple with these issues of really addressing systemic discrimination. It is clear that although the compliance function is a central component in this, that really it is through education that we are really going to be able to change those attitudes in the way that some of the morning delegates pointed out to you. In that same context on the compliance side, it is clear from the Ross decision that the Commission must go about its compliance functions in a very serious and business like way, and that although some difference and latitude is given in terms of the compliance process, the length and the kind of resources that were attributed to this case by the Commission point to the need for better investigative techniques and the desire and ability of settling matters or bringing matters to a conclusion in an early stage if at all possible. There is no question that in terms of the jurisprudence of this case and the effect that it has had on the day to day administration of the Commission, this was certainly a very worthwhile effort. But, I think also because of the kind of drain that it put on our resources, it pointed to the need for us to sharpen our abilities, to settle problems at the earlier stages of the investigation if at all possible.

There are also some other bi-products of this decision that I want to elude to at the conclusion of our speakers this afternoon. But for now I am going to move onto the first of my three introductions, and that is to introduce to you Dean Ann LaForest, of the Faculty of Law, UNB. I just got to meet Ann and become somewhat acquainted with her rather brilliant record over the past few weeks. On the basis of that limited exposure, join those who commend those who have brought Ann back to New Brunswick. Some of you may know, she graduated from UNB Law School, and then Cambridge University, practised law with Fraser and Beatty in Toronto for a number of years, and then joined the faculty of law at Dalhousie University Law School. I would hazard a guess at saying she was something of a whirlwind in Nova Scotia. She excelled in the teaching of law and also in the area of women's studies where she was recognized for her excellence in teaching. She is very active in publishing, in conferencing, and also in continuing the practice of law as a labour arbitrator. She has joined us back in New Brunswick this year as Dean of Law at the University of New Brunswick. Today Ann is going to speak about the Ross decision in terms of the limits on freedom of expression. Tom focused on that somewhat but Anne is focusing on the degree of the protection to students in the multicultural classroom.

‹‹ RETURN TO MULTICULTURAL CLASSROOM

© 2007 Atlantic Human Rights Centre, St. Thomas University