Date: 19990429
Docket: A-402-97
CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE
STONE J.A.
DESJARDINS J.A.
BETWEEN:
Enter Style of Cause just after [Comment] code.
-
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Appellant
(Applicant)
- and -
CANADIAN POSTMASTERS
AND ASSISTANTS ASSOCIATION
Respondent
(Respondent)
- and -
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
(Intervenor)
HEARD at Toronto, Ontario, Thursday, April 29, 1999.
JUDGMENT delivered at Toronto, Ontario, Thursday, April 29, 1999.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DESJARDINS J.A.
Date: 19990429
Docket: A-402-97
CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE
STONE J.A.
DESJARDINS J.A.
BETWEEN:
Enter Style of Cause just after [Comment] code.
- CANADA POST CORPORATION
Appellant
(Applicant)
- and -
CANADIAN POSTMASTERS
AND ASSISTANTS ASSOCIATION
Respondent
(Respondent)
- and -
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
(Intervenor)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario
on Thursday, April 29, 1999)
DESJARDINS J.A.:
[1] This is an appeal from a decision of the Trial Division1 dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (hereinafter the "Commission"). The Commission decided to deal with a complaint respecting pay equity, which was filed by the respondent (hereinafter "the Association") in 1992 and amended in 1993, (the 1992/93 complaint). The Commission said:
The Commission has decided, pursuant to paragraphs 41(a) (sic) and 41(d) (sic) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, to deal with the complaint because the Commission is satisfied that no other review procedures currently available to the complainant are more appropriate than the complaint process to resolve the complaint and that no bad faith has been demonstrated.
[2] In its application for judicial review, the appellant (hereinafter "Canada Post") submitted that, in filing its complaint, the Association failed to "exhaust grievance or review procedures otherwise reasonably available" as prescribed in subparagraph 41(1)(a) of the Canadian Human Rights Act2 (hereinafter "the Act") and that the complaint was "made in bad faith", as described in subparagraph 41(1)(d) of the Act. The Motions Judge found no fault with the decision.
[3] Subsection 41 of the Act provides:
41. (1) Subject to section 40, the Commission shall deal with any complaint filed with it unless in respect of that complaint it appears to the Commission that
41. (1) Sous réserve de l'article 40, la Commission statue sur toute plainte dont elle est saisie à moins qu'elle estime celle-ci irrecevable pour un des motifs suivants :
(a) the alleged victim of the discriminatory practice to which the complaint relates ought to exhaust grievance or review procedures otherwise reasonably available;
a) la victime présumée de l'acte discriminatoire devrait épuiser d'abord les recours internes ou les procédures d'appel ou de règlement des griefs qui lui sont normalement ouverts;
(b) the complaint is one that could more appropriately be dealt with, initially or completely, according to a procedure provided for under an Act of Parliament other than this Act;
b) la plainte pourrait avantageusement être instruite, dans un premier temps ou à toutes les étapes, selon des procédures prévues par une autre loi fédérale;
(c) the complaint is beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission;
c) la plainte n'est pas de sa compétence;
(d) the complaint is trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith; or
d) la plainte est frivole, vexatoire ou entachée de mauvaise foi;
(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. Commission may decline to deal with 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.
R.S., 1985, c. H-6, s. 41; 1994, c. 26, s. 34(F); 1995, c. 44, s. 49.
[emphasis added]
L.R. (1985), ch. H-6, art. 41; 1994, ch. 26, art. 34(F); 1995, ch. 44, art. 49.
[nous soulignons]
[4] Canada Post claims that the Motions Judge wrongly deferred to the Commission's decision with regard to the absence of bad faith, considering the Motions Judge himself made some reference to possible dubious conduct on the part of the Association. Moreover, says Canada Post, the words "bad faith" in subparagraph 41(1)(d) have a legal connotation which calls for less deference on the part of the Court than the other words "trivial", "frivolous" and "vexatious" which are more fact oriented.
[5] Despite Counsel's able argument, we find no merit in it. The Motions Judge, appropriately in our view, interpreted the legislative framework under which the Commission's decision was made. Parliament makes it clear, by the words "it appears to the Commission", that whether "bad faith" exist in the circumstances of this case, is one for the Commission to make.
[6] Canada Post further claims that the Motions Judge erred in not recognizing that the Commission erred in stating in its decision that no other review procedure currently available to the complainant was "more appropriate" than the complaint process under the Act. The Commission, says Canada Post, wrongly applied the terms of subparagraph 41(1)(b) of the Act while the terms of subparagraph 41(1)(a) on which it relied, read instead "otherwise reasonably available".
[7] While the Commission used some of the language found in subparagraph 41(1)(b) of the Act, which is different from that found in subparagraph 41(1)(a) of the Act, we do not think that the use of such a language amounts to an error which warrants our intervention. The Commission was called upon to make a determination on a subjective basis as to whether the Association "ought to" have exhausted a procedure "otherwise reasonably available". The reasonableness of the process had to be assessed. It was open to the Commission to consider factors related thereto. In the context, the use of the words "more appropriate" were immaterial. Whether the internal procedure was "reasonably" available to the complainant and "ought to" have been resorted to by it was one for the Commission to make ("as it appears to the Commission"). The determination was discretionary in nature. That is what the Motions Judge found. We see no error in his finding.
[8] This appeal will be dismissed with costs to the respondent.
"A. Desjardins"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: A-402-97
STYLE OF CAUSE: CANADA POST CORPORATION
| - and - |
CANADIAN POSTMASTERS
AND ASSISTANTS ASSOCIATION
| - and - |
| CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS |
| COMMISSION |
DATE OF HEARING: THURSDAY, APRIL 29, 1999
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
| OF THE COURT BY: DESJARDINS J.A. |
Delivered at Toronto, Ontario
on Thursday, April 29, 1999
APPEARANCES: Mr. Christopher G. Riggs, Q.C.
| For the Appellant |
Mr. Sean T. McGee
For the Respondent
Ms. Rosemary Morgan
For the Intervenors
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie |
Barristers & Solicitors
Toronto-Dominion Tower
Box 371, Toronto-Dominion Centre
Thirtieth Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5K 1K8
| For the Appellant |
Nelligan Power
Barristers & Solicitors
1900 - 66 Slater Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 5H1
For the Respondent
Canadian Human Rights Commission
Place de Ville, Tower "A"
320 Queen Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 1B1
For the Intervenor
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
Date: 19990429
Docket: A-402-97
BETWEEN:
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Appellant
(Applicant)
- and -
CANADIAN POSTMASTERS
AND ASSISTANTS ASSOCIATION
Respondents
(Respondents)
- and -
| CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION |
(Intervenor)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
| OF THE COURT |
__________________
11. Canada Post Corporation v. Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) (Re: Canadian Postmasters and Assistants Association) (1997) 130 F.T.R. 241.
22. R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6 as amended.