The Court of Queen’s Bench in July of 1999 upheld a 1998 board of inquiry decision requiring Regina businessman Henry Ripplinger to upgrade the washrooms at his Regina tearoom-gift shop to become wheelchair accessible.

A 1993 board of inquiry determined the lack of access to the washrooms contravened Section 12 of The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code. Ripplinger successfully appealed that decision to the Court of Queen’s Bench but was subsequently overturned by the  

Court of Appeal and board of inquiry. Although the entrance to the facility is wheelchair accessible the businessman did not make the washrooms accessible.

In its 1998 decision the board remarked; "It lacks common sense to invite a wheelchair reliant person onto the premises for purposes of consuming food and liquor but not to make the washrooms accessible.’’

Mr. Ripplinger has since given notice of his intention to appeal the Court of Queen’s Bench decision with the Court of Appeal. (July 5, 1999)

The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission joined with five other human rights commissions to intervene in the case of British Columbia Human Rights Commission v. Robin Blencoe, before the Supreme Court of Canada.

Blencoe successfully argued in the B.C. Court of Appeal that his right to liberty and security of the person, protected by section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been violated when the B.C. Human Rights Commission took too long to process two complaints of sexual harassment. According to Blencoe there was serious damage to his reputation and dignity by allowing these complaints to drag on for more than two years. The Court of Appeal agreed and prohibited a human rights tribunal from proceeding with the complaints.

For a variety of reasons delays often occur as complaints are processed through initial screening, attempts at mediation, investigation and referral to a tribunal hearing. Commissions are chronically under-funded, and the process is complex. All Commissions are concerned about delays and are working to reduce them. But they also believed that delays do not violate the rights of respondents under the Charter.

The Saskatchewan Commission intervened to argue that the complex process that a complaints proceeds through is designed to protect the interests of the respondents. A complaint cannot be referred to a hearing until attempts have been made to settle the matter and the allegations have been investigated and found to have merit. Delays brought about by the complex process affect both respondents and complainants.

The Saskatchewan Commission argued that any solution to unacceptable delays must recognize and balance the rights of both complainants and respondents. By simply prohibiting the complaint from proceeding, the B.C. Court of Appeal recognized only the rights of respondents. Saskatchewan therefore joined with the other Commissions in arguing that the Appeal Court decision should be overturned.

The Supreme Court stated that section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does apply to human right proceedings, but in the Blencoe case his section 7 rights were not violated. The court held that anxiety, stress and stigma suffered by Blencoe did not deprive him of his right to liberty or security of the person. (Jan. 24, 2000)