Majority
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
La Forest J.
La Forest J. ‑‑ It will not be necessary to hear you Ms. Minor. The Court is ready to give judgment. The constitutional question reads:
Under the Constitution Act, 1867 , is the Ontario Human Rights Code applicable to the National Dental Examining Board of Canada with respect to the investigations which are the subject of this appeal?
The Board is not operating under the Peace, Order and Good Government clause or the trade and commerce power under s. 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 , but is simply a federally incorporated board subject to provincial human rights legislation. Therefore, the Ontario Human Rights Commission has jurisdiction over complaints that are the subject of this appeal.
The appellant also argued that the doctrine of res judicata should apply to deprive the respondent Commission of jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. We do not agree. So far as Dr. Footman is concerned, the complaint of discrimination under the Human Rights Code, 1981, S.O. 1981, c. 53, is not the cause of action that came before the Federal Court and the various boards. The questions to be decided before the respondent Commission are not the same as those decided in the earlier proceedings.
In the case of Dr. Mendelsohn, there is not even a decision that could give rise to res judicata because her proceedings before the Federal Court were abandoned.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. The constitutional question is answered in the affirmative.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant: Genest Murray Desbrisay Lamek, Toronto.
Solicitor for the respondents: The Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec: The Attorney General of Quebec, Ste‑Foy.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General for Alberta: The Attorney General for Alberta, Edmonton.