BETWEEN:
and
Hearing held at Ottawa, Ontario, on December 6, 2005.
Judgement delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on December 7, 2005.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: CHIEF JUSTICE RICHARD
CONCURRED IN BY: NADON J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
Date: 20051207
Docket: A-59-05
Citation: 2005 FCA 415
CORAM: CHIEF JUSTICE RICHARD
NADON J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
A.B.
Appellant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
[1] This is an appeal by A.B. from a decision by Mr. Justice Simon Noël of the Federal Court (2004 FC 1669) dismissing the appellant's application for judicial review of a decision dated February 6, 2004, by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the Commission), dismissing A.B.'s complaint under paragraph 41(1)(e) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6 (the Act), because it contemplated acts that occurred more than one year before the complaint was received.
[2] Paragraph 41(1)(e) of the Act provides:
| 41(1) . . . the Commission shall deal with any complaint filed with it unless in respect of that complaint it appears to the Commission that
|
41.(1) [...] la Commission statue sur toute plainte dont elle est saisie à moins qu'elle estime celle-ci irrecevable pour un des motifs suivants:
|
| (e) the complaint is based on acts or omissions the last of which occurred more than one year, or such longer period of time as the Commission considers appropriate in the circumstances, before receipt of the complaint.
|
e) la plainte a été déposée après l'expiration d'un délai d'un an après le dernier des faits sur lesquels elle est fondée, ou de tout délai supérieur que la Commission estime indiqué dans les circonstances.
|
[3] After asking whether the Commission had erred in fact or in law, or had otherwise acted in a perverse or capricious manner or in breach of the principles of natural justice or procedural fairness, the judge responded that the Commission's decision not to decide A.B.'s complaint was not unreasonable and, accordingly, there was not basis to intervene.
[4] In his reasons, the judge determined, on reviewing the record and analysing the evidence, that it was not patently unreasonable for the Commission to have refused to decide A.B.'s complaint.
[5] He noted that the events complained of occurred in 1990 when she was dismissed by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, where she had worked since February 13, 1989.
[6] After her dismissal, A.B. filed a grievance before the Public Service Labour Relations Board (P.S.L.R.B.).
[7] On September 6, 1991, she wrote a letter to the Director General of the Commission to inform him that she intended to seek relief from the Commission if her grievance did not result in a fair remedy.
[8] From 1990 to 1997, A.B. pursued her grievance. On June 4, 1997, the adjudicator held that the P.S.L.R.B did not have the jurisdiction to hear her grievance on the ground that the appropriate tribunal was the Commission.
[9] Even if A.B. is given the benefit of the doubt for the period from September 6, 1991 to June 4, 1997, Simon Noël J. determined that as of June 4, 1997, A.B. had all that she needed to proceed promptly with her complaint, which she did not do until November 24, 2003.
[10] It appears from the record that there was no communication between A.B. and the Commission for a three-year period between April 1998 and August 2001.
[11] Even though A.B. contacted the Commission on September 6, 1991, a letter of intention is not a complaint. She did not sign and file the complaint form with all the required information until November 24, 2003.
[12] The judge noted that the Commission has a very broad discretion in exercising its power to consider complaints filed outside the one-year time limit provided by the Act.
[13] He referred to this Court's decision in Bell Canadav. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, [1998] F.C.J. No. 1609 (F.C.A.) at paragraph 38 where Décary J.A. determined:
| . . . it may safely be said as a general rule that Parliament did not want the courts at this stage to intervene lightly in the decisions of the Commission. |
[14] The judge also determined that there was no breach of the duty of procedural fairness. A.B. had been heard and the Commission had all the facts at its disposal to make a decision.
[15] This appeal does not raise any ground justifying the Court's intervention. The appeal must be dismissed.
I concur.
"M. Nadon" J.A.
I concur.
"J.D. Denis Pelletier" J.A.
Certified true translation
Kelley A. Harvey, BCL, LLB
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-59-05
Appeal from an order by the Honourable Mr. Justice Noël dated December 17, 2004, in docket T-488-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: A.B. v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: December 6, 2005
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: CHIEF JUSTICE RICHARD
DATE OF REASONS: December 7, 2005
APPEARANCES:
| FOR THE APPELLANT
|
|
| FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| FOR THE APPELLANT
|
|
|
Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario |
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|