BETWEEN:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
and
Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 29, 2006.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 29, 2006.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: SHARLOW J.A.
Docket: A-395-05
Citation: 2006 FCA 127
CORAM: NOËL J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Appellant
and
SUZANNE DUBOIS
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 29, 2006)
[1] This is an appeal and a cross-appeal from a judgment of the Federal Court dated August 16, 2005 (2005 FC 1079), which allowed the application of Suzanne Dubois for judicial review of a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissing her complaint against her employer, the Canadian International Development Agency. Ms. Dubois complaint cites sections 14 and 14.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S. 1985, c. H-6.
[2] The only issue in this appeal relates to Ms. Dubois' allegation that her employer threatened or intimidated her in order to deter or prevent her from filing her complaint. The Commission declined to investigate that allegation because section 14.1 relates only to acts that occur after a complaint has been filed. Section 14.1 reads as follows (my emphasis):
| 14.1 It is a discriminatory practice for a person against whom a complaint has been filed under Part III, or any person acting on their behalf, to retaliate or threaten retaliation against the individual who filed the complaint or the alleged victim. |
14.1 Constitue un acte discriminatoire le fait, pour la personne visée par une plainte déposée au titre de la partie III, ou pour celle qui agit en son nom, d'exercer ou de menacer d'exercer des représailles contre le plaignant ou la victime présumée. |
[3] The judge accepted the argument of Ms. Dubois that section 14.1 should be construed to include attempts to deter or prevent the filing of a complaint. The Crown argues that the judge's interpretation is not consistent with the words of section 14.1, and also argues that the acts complained of are covered by other provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act, including paragraph 14(1)(c), the provision that prohibits harassment in the workplace on a prohibited ground of discrimination.
[4] I agree with the Crown that the judge's interpretation of section 14.1 is not correct. However, it does not follow that this appeal should be allowed.
[5] If, as the Crown says, the acts complained of fall within paragraph 14(1)(c) or another
provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act (a point on which we express no opinion), then Ms.
Dubois' complaint should be investigated on that basis, assuming Ms. Dubois is interested in pursuing this matter.
[6] The appeal will be dismissed. As Ms. Dubois did not pursue her cross-appeal and did appear at the hearing, her cross appeal will be dismissed. No costs will be awarded on the appeal.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-395-05
(APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OR AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL COURT DATED AUGUST 16, 2005, FEDERAL COURT FILE NO. T-2172-04.)
STYLE OF CAUSE: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
CANADAv. SUZANNE DUBOIS
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: March 29, 2006
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: (Noël, Sharlow, Pelletier JJ.A.)
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: Sharlow J.A.
APPEARANCES:
| FOR THE APPELLANT
|
|
| RESPONDENT ON HER OWN BEHALF |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Deputy Attorney General of Canada |
FOR THE APPELLANT
|
|
Suzanne Dubois |
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|