Slattery v. CHRC (1994), 73 F.T.R. 161 (TD)
MLB headnote and full text
Edwina Slattery (applicant) v. The Canadian Human Rights Commission (respondent)
(T-675-92)
Indexed As: Slattery v. Canadian Human Rights Commission
Federal Court of Canada
Trial Division
Nadon, J.
February 14, 1994.
Summary:
A former employee of the Communications Security Establishment Division of the Department of National Defence made two complaints of discrimination on the basis of age and sex. A human rights officer dismissed the complaints. The Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissed the complaints without a hearing on the basis that the allegations of discrimination were unfounded. The employee applied under s. 18.1 of the Federal Court Act for judicial review of the decision.
The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the application.
Administrative Law – Topic 546
The hearing and decision – Decisions of the tribunal – Reasons for decisions – General – The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that there was no general common law duty for administrative bodies to give reasons for their decisions – See paragraph 67.
Civil Rights – Topic 7042
Federal or provincial legislation – Commissions or boards – General – Right to tribunal – The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, discussed the standard which the Canadian Human Rights Commission must apply in determining whether appointment of a tribunal was warranted, assuming a thorough and neutral investigation of a complaint existed – See paragraphs 71 to 81.
Civil Rights – Topic 7115
Federal or provincial legislation – Practice – Judicial review – The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, discussed when judicial review was warranted of a decision by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to dismiss a complaint, pursuant to an investigation, without a hearing – The court held that the Commission must have had a fair basis on which to evaluate whether a tribunal should be appointed, i.e., the investigation must have been conducted with neutrality and thoroughness – The court referred to situations where unreasonable omissions by the investigator warranted judicial review – See paragraphs 48 to 59.
Cases Noticed:
Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk Board of Commissioners of Police, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 311; 23 N.R. 410; 88 D.L.R.(3d) 671; 78 C.L.L.C. 14,181, refd to. [para. 39].
Syndicat des employés de production du Québec et de l’Acadie v. Commission canadienne des droits de la personne, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 879; 100 N.R. 241; 62 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 39].
Singh et al. v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; 58 N.R. 1; 14 C.R.R. 13; 12 Admin. L.R. 137; 17 D.L.R.(4th) 422, refd to. [para. 40].
Latif v. Canadian Human Rights Commission and Fairweather (1979), 28 N.R. 494; 105 D.L.R.(3d) 609 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 41].
Radulesco v. Canadian Human Rights Commission (1984), 55 N.R. 384; 6 C.H.R.R. D/2831 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 41].
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al. (1993), 71 F.T.R. 214 (T.D.), consd. [para. 50].
Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 554; 149 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 56].
Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières v. Syndicat des employés professionnels de l’Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières (1993), 148 N.R. 209; 93 C.L.L.C. 12,104 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 59].
R. v. Gaming Board of Great Britain, ex parte Benaim, [1970] 2 All E.R. 528 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].
Glendenning Motorways Inc. v. Royal Transportation Ltd. (1975), 59 D.L.R.(3d) 89 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].
Mercier v. Commission canadienne des droits de la personne (1991), 51 F.T.R. 205 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 67].
Selvarajan v. Race Relations Board, [1976] 1 All E.R. 12 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].
Multi-Malls Inc. v. Ontario (Minister of Transport and Communications) (1976), 73 D.L.R.(3d) 18 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 75].
Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, [1968] 1 All E.R. 694 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 75].
Onischak v. British Columbia (Council of Human Rights) (1989), 10 C.H.R.R. D/6290 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 76].
Cook v. British Columbia (Council of Human Rights) (1988), 26 B.C.L.R.(2d) 52 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 76].
Maple Lodge Farms v. Canada and Minister of Economic Development, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 2; 44 N.R. 354, refd to. [para. 79].
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corp., [1948] 1 K.B. 223 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].
Hall & Co. v. Shoreham-by-Sea Urban District Council, [1964] 1 W.L.R. 240 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].
Nova Scotia Forest Industries v. Nova Scotia Pulpwood Marketing Board (1975), 12 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 6 A.P.R. 91 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].
Statutes Noticed:
Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6, sect. 2 [paras. 37, 75]; sect. 3(1) [para. 37]; sect. 7 [paras. 24-25, 37]; sect. 10 [para. 37]; sect. 36(3) [paras. 72, 74]; sect. 41, sect. 42(1) [para. 67]; sect. 43, sect. 44 [para. 37]; sect. 44(3) [paras. 71, 74-75, 78-79]; sect. 44(3)(a) [para. 49]; sect. 44(3)(b)(i) [para. 1]; sect. 44(4) [para. 54].
Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 18 [paras. 40, 42]; sect. 18.1 [para. 1]; sect. 18.1(4) [para. 38]; sect. 18.1(4)(d) [para. 83]; sect. 28 [paras. 40, 42].
Human Rights Act, S.B.C. 1984, c. 22, sect. 14(1)(a), sect. 14(1)(d) [para. 77].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Dussault & Borgeat, Administrative Law (1990), p. 340 ff [para. 75].
Mendez, Presumptions of Discriminatory Motive in Title VII Disparate Treatment Cases (1980), 32 Stan. L. Rev. 1129 [para. 32].
Tarnopolsky, Discrimination and the Law (1985), p. 131 [para. 55].
Wade, Administrative Law (6th Ed. 1988), pp. 938-939 [para. 82].
Counsel:
Andrew J. Raven, for the applicant;
William F. Pentney, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Raven, Jewitt & Allen, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicant;
William F. Pentney, General Council, Canadian Human Rights Commission, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.
This application was heard on October 6, 1993, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Nadon, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on February 14, 1994.
