VIA Rail Can. Inc. v. CTA (2007), 360 N.R. 1 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
…………………….
Temp. Cite: [2007] N.R. TBEd. MR.009
Council of Canadians with Disabilities (appellant) v. Via Rail Canada Inc. (respondent) and Canadian Transportation Agency, Canadian Human Rights Commission, Ontario Human Rights Commission, Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, Manitoba Human Rights Commission, Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, Transportation Action Now, Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians, Canadian Association for Community Living, Canadian Hard of Hearing Association, Canadian Association of Independent Living Centres and DisAbled Women’s Network Canada (intervenors)
(30909; 2007 SCC 15; 2007 CSC 15)
Indexed As: VIA Rail Canada Inc. v. Canadian Transportation Agency et al.
Supreme Court of Canada
McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ.
March 23, 2007.
Summary:
VIA purchased 139 rail cars for $139 million, increasing the size of its fleet by one-third. The Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD), believing that the cars were not wheelchair accessible, sought interim relief under ss. 27 and 28 of the Canada Transportation Act and a final order under s. 172(1). The CCD requested that the Canadian Transportation Agency determine whether the cars contained “undue obstacles” to the mobility of wheelchair bound persons. After finding “undue obstacles”, the Agency directed VIA to structurally modify the cars to remove the “undue obstacles”. VIA appealed and obtained a stay pending appeal.
The Federal Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported (2005), 330 N.R. 337, allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for reconsideration with directions. The CCD appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada, Binnie, Fish, Charron and Rothstein, JJ., dissenting, allowed the appeal and restored the Agency’s decision.
Administrative Law – Topic 2266
Natural justice – The duty of fairness – What constitutes procedural fairness – [See first
Carriers – Topic 1110
].
Administrative Law – Topic 3221.1
Judicial review – General – Unreasonable and patently unreasonable distinguished – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that “I appreciate that it is a conceptual challenge to delineate the difference in degrees of deference between what is patently unreasonable and what is unreasonable. Both, it seems to me, speak to whether a tribunal’s decision is demonstrably unreasonable, that is, such a marked departure from what is rational, as to be unsustainable. … But whatever label is used to describe the requisite standard of reasonableness, a reviewing court should defer where ‘the reasons, taken as a whole, are tenable as support for the decision’ … or ‘where … the decision of that tribunal [could] be sustained on a reasonable interpretation of the facts or of the law'” – See paragraphs 102, 103.
Administrative Law – Topic 9050
Boards and tribunals – Jurisdiction of particular boards and tribunals – Canadian Transportation Agency – [See
Carriers – Topic 1062
].
Carriers – Topic 1062
Federal legislation – Canadian Transport Commission (now National Transportation Agency) – Jurisdiction – General – Section 172(1) of the Canada Transportation Act empowered the Canadian Transportation Agency to inquire, upon application, into a matter in relation to which a regulation could be made under s. 170(1) – Section 170(1) empowered the Agency to make regulations eliminating undue obstacles in a transportation network, including regulations respecting the design, construction or modification of the means of transportation – VIA Rail purchased 139 rail cars that were not wheelchair accessible – The Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD) requested that the Agency act under s. 172(1), notwithstanding that there was no specific incident which gave rise to the request – VIA argued that absent a specific complaint of a person encountering an undue obstacle, the Agency lacked jurisdiction – The Federal Court of Appeal held that the Agency was correct in resolving the jurisdictional issue of its authority under s. 172(1) – The Supreme Court of Canada agreed that the Agency had jurisdiction under s. 172(1), but disagreed that the issue was one of jurisdiction outside of the Agency’s area of expertise, to which the correctness standard applied – The court stated, inter alia, that “if every provision of a tribunal’s enabling legislation were treated as if it had jurisdictional consequences that permitted a court to substitute it own view of the correct interpretation, a tribunal’s role would be effectively reduced to fact-finding. … a tribunal with the power to decide questions of law is a tribunal with the power to decide questions involving the statutory interpretation of its enabling legislation, whether or not the questions also engage human rights issues. … Given that the Agency’s jurisdiction to entertain CCD’s complaint under s. 172(1) turns almost exclusively on its own discretionary decision-making, s. 172(1) is a jurisdiction-granting, not jurisdiction-limiting, provision.” – The Agency’s decision on its authority under s. 172(1) was reviewable on the patent unreasonableness standard – See paragraphs 83 to 111.
Carriers – Topic 1110
Federal legislation – Regulation of carriers – General – Undue obstacles to mobility of disabled persons – Section 172 of the Canada Transportation Act empowered the Canadian Transportation Agency, in respect of a national transportation network, to inquire into and remedy “undue obstacles” to the mobility of disabled persons – VIA Rail purchased 139 rail cars that were not wheelchair accessible, increasing the size of its fleet by one-third – The Agency ordered structural modifications to eliminate the undue obstacles – The Federal Court of Appeal set aside the ruling and remitted that matter to the Agency for reconsideration on the grounds that the Agency erred in focussing its undue obstacle analysis solely on the new rail cars and modifications to them, rather than considering whether VIA’s network was flexible enough to accommodate the disabilities; failed to conduct the required balancing exercise by failing to consider the interests of non-disabled persons and persons with other disabilities, and the costs of the modifications and its effect on VIA’s viability; failed to consider that in attempting to balance every interest, the system could not afford to equip every rail car with every mechanism to address every type of disability; and erred in ordering the modifications without permitting VIA a reasonable opportunity to obtain and provide cost estimates of such modifications (denial of procedural fairness) – The Supreme Court of Canada restored the Agency’s decision as not being patently unreasonable – The Agency had the uniquely specialized expertise to balance public responsibility for assessing barriers with the practical realities (financial, structural and logistical) of the national transportation system – Procedural fairness was not denied where VIA made a tactical decision to deprive the Agency of information uniquely in its possession – No issue of fairness arose where VIA sought relief based on an evidentiary vacuum of its own creation – See paragraphs 111 to 226.
Carriers – Topic 1110
Federal legislation – Regulation of carriers – General – Undue obstacles to mobility of disabled persons – Section 172 of the Canada Transportation Act empowered the Canadian Transportation Agency, in respect of a national transportation network, to inquire into and remedy “undue obstacles” to the mobility of disabled persons – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that “where there is a conflict between human rights law and other specific legislation, unless an exception is created, the human rights legislation, as a collective statement of public policy, must govern. It follows as a natural corollary that where a statutory provision is open to more than one interpretation, it must be interpreted consistently with human rights principles. The Agency is therefore obliged to apply the principles of the Canadian Human Rights Act … when defining and identifying ‘undue obstacles’ in the transportation context” – See paragraph 115.
Civil Rights – Topic 1192
Discrimination – Exceptions or exemptions – General – Undue hardship – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that “the point of undue hardship is reached when reasonable means of accommodation are exhausted and only unreasonable or impracticable options for accommodation remain” – See paragraph 130.
Railways – Topic 1061.1
Regulation – Canadian Transport Commission (now Canadian Transportation Agency) – Jurisdiction – General – [See
Carriers – Topic 1062
].
Cases Noticed:
Canadian National Railway Co. v. Ferroequus Railway Co. et al., [2002] N.R. Uned. 307; 2002 FCA 193, refd to. [para. 29].
Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Canadian Transportation Agency et al., [2003] 4 F.C. 558; 307 N.R. 378; 2003 FCA 271, refd to. [para. 86].
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 963 v. New Brunswick Liquor Corp., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 227; 26 N.R. 341; 25 N.B.R.(2d) 237; 51 A.P.R. 237, refd to. [para. 88].
Pasiechnyk v. Workers’ Compensation Board (Sask.) – see Pasiechnyk et al. v. Procrane Inc. et al.
Pasiechnyk et al. v. Procrane Inc. et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 890; 216 N.R. 1; 158 Sask.R. 81; 153 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 91].
Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 91].
Syndicat national des employés de la commission scolaire régionale de l’Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048; 95 N.R. 161; 24 Q.A.C. 244, refd to. [para. 91].
Union des employés de service, local 298 v. Bibeault – see Syndicat national des employés de la commission scolaire régionale de l’Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ).
Bibeault – see Syndicat national des employés de la commission scolaire régionale de l’Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ).
Barrie Public Utilities et al. v. Canadian Cable Television Association et al., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 476; 304 N.R. 1; 2003 SCC 28, refd to. [para. 92].
Ryan v. Law Society of New Brunswick, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 247; 302 N.R. 1; 257 N.B.R.(2d) 207; 674 A.P.R. 207; 2003 SCC 20, refd to. [para. 101].
Canada (Attorney General) v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 941; 150 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 101].
Toronto (City) et al. v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77; 311 N.R. 201; 179 O.A.C. 291; 2003 SCC 63, refd to. [para. 102].
National Corn Growers’ Association et al. v. Canadian Import Tribunal, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1324; 114 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 103].
Public Service Employee Relations Commission (B.C.) v. British Columbia Government and Service Employee’s Union, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3; 244 N.R. 145; 127 B.C.A.C. 161; 207 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 109].
Grismer – see Superintendent of Motor Vehicles (B.C.) et al. v. Council of Human Rights (B.C.).
Superintendent of Motor Vehicles (B.C.) et al. v. Council of Human Rights (B.C.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 868; 249 N.R. 45; 131 B.C.A.C. 280; 214 W.A.C. 280, refd to. [para. 109].
Tranchemontagne v. Disability Support Program (Ont.) et al., [2006] 1 S.C.R. 513; 347 N.R. 144; 210 O.A.C. 267; 2006 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 114].
Craton v. Winnipeg School Division No. 1 et al., [1985] 2 S.C.R. 150; 61 N.R. 241; 38 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 114].
Commission scolair régionale de Chambly v. Bergevin – see Commission scolaire régionale de Chambly v. Syndical de l’enseignement de Champlain et autres.
Commission scolaire régionale de Chambly v. Syndicat de l’enseignement de Champlain et autres, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 525; 169 N.R. 281; 62 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 121].
Eldridge et al. v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624; 218 N.R. 161; 96 B.C.A.C. 81; 155 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 122].
Canadian National Railway Co. v. Canadian Human Rights Commission – see Action Travail des Femmes v. Canadian National Railway Co. et al.
Action Travail des Femmes v. Canadian National Railway Co. et al., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1114; 76 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 127].
Central Alberta Dairy Pool v. Human Rights Commission (Alta.), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 489; 113 N.R. 161; 111 A.R. 241, refd to. [para. 128].
Ontario Human Rights Commission, Dunlop, Hall and Gray v. Borough of Etobicoke, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 202; 40 N.R. 159, refd to.[para. 130].
Human Rights Commission (Ont.) and O’Malley v. Simpsons-Sears, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536; 64 N.R. 161; 12 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 130].
Renaud v. Board of Education of Central Okanagan No. 23 and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 523, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 970; 141 N.R. 185; 13 B.C.A.C. 245; 24 W.A.C. 245, refd to. [para. 130].
Howard v. University of British Columbia (1993), 18 C.H.R.R. D/353 (B.C.H.R.C.), refd to. [para. 131].
Brock v. Tarrant Film Factory Ltd. (2000), 37 C.H.R.R. D/305 (Ont. Bd. Inq.), refd to. [para. 132].
Quesnel v. London Educational Health Centre (1995), 28 C.H.R.R. D/474 (Ont. Bd. Inq.), refd to. [para. 132].
Maine Human Rights Commission v. South Portland (City) (1986), 508 A.2d 948 (Me.), refd to. [para. 132].
Québec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v. Montréal (Ville) et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 665; 253 N.R. 107; 2000 SCC 27, refd to. [para. 137].
Via Rail Canada Inc. v. National Transportation Agency et al., [2001] 2 F.C. 25; 261 N.R. 184 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 140].
Hutchinson v. British Columbia (Ministry of Health) (No. 4) (2004), 49 C.H.R.R. D/348; 2004 BCHRT 58, refd to. [para. 226].
Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 231].
Gateway Packers 1968 Ltd. v. Burlington Northern (Manitoba) Ltd. and Winnipeg (City), [1971] F.C. 359 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 231].
Allied Auto Parts Ltd. v. Canadian Transport Commission, [1983] 2 F.C. 248 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 231].
Minister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise) v. Mattel Canada Inc., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 100; 270 N.R. 153; 2001 SCC 36, refd to. [para. 278].
Mattel Inc. v. 3894207 Canada Inc. et al., [2006] 1 S.C.R. 772; 348 N.R. 340; 2006 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 278].
Dr. Q, Re, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226; 302 N.R. 34; 179 B.C.A.C. 170; 295 W.A.C. 170; 2003 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 281].
Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20, refd to. [para. 282].
Chieu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 84; 280 N.R. 268; 2002 SCC 3, refd to. [para. 282].
Minister of National Revenue v. Shell Canada Ltd., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 616; 247 N.R. 19, refd to. [para. 315].
Ainsley Financial Corp. et al. v. Ontario Securities Commission et al. (1994), 77 O.A.C. 155; 21 O.R.(3d) 104 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 347].
Statutes Noticed:
Canada Transportation Act, S.C. 1996, c. 10, sect. 5 [paras. 14, 125]; sect. 29(1) [para. 28]; sect. 32 [para. 236]; sect. 170(1) [para. 83, footnote 1]; sect. 171 [para. 116]; sect. 172(1) [paras. 13, 16, 83]; 172(3) [paras. 13, 83].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Brown, Donald J.M., and Evans, John M., Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Canada (1998) (2001 Looseleaf Update), pp. 7-66 to 7-70 [para. 231].
Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, vol. 6, 2nd Sess., 33rd Parliament (June 17, 1987), p. 7273 [para. 112].
Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, vol. 13, 2nd Sess., 33rd Parliament (June 17, 1988), p. 16573 [para. 113].
Canada, House of Commons, Report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, The Renaissance of Passenger Rail in Canada (1998), pp. 4, 17 [para. 253].
Canadian Standards Association, Barrier-Free Design Standard, CAN/CSA-B651-95, generally [paras. 151, 266].
Jones, David P., and de Villars, Anne S., Principles of Administrative Law (4th Ed. 2004), p. 140 [para. 90].
Lepofsky, M. David, Federal Court of Appeal De-Rails Equality Rights for Persons with Disabilities – VIA Rail v. Canadian Transportation Agency and the Important Duty Not to Create New Barriers to Accessibility (2005-2006), 18 Nat’l J. Const. L. 169, p. 188 [para. 178].
Lepofsky, M. David, The Duty to Accommodate: A Purposive Approach (1993), 1 Can. Lab. L.J. 1, p. 6 [para. 181].
McKenna, Ian B., Legal Rights for Persons with Disabilities in Canada: Can the Impasse Be Resolved? (1997-98), 29 Ottawa L. Rev. 153, p. 164 [para. 181].
Mullan, David, Tribunals and Courts – The Contemporary Terrain: Lessons from Human Rights Regimes (1999), 24 Queen’s L.J. 643, p. 660 [para. 89].
Counsel:
David Baker and Sarah Godwin, for the appellant;
John A. Campion, Robin P. Roddey and Annie M.K. Finn, for the respondent;
Inge Green and Elizabeth Barker, for the intervenor, the Canadian Transportation Agency;
Leslie A. Reaume and Philippe Dufresne, for the intervenor, the Canadian Human Rights Commission;
Written submissions only by Hart Schwartz, Eric del Junco and Sylvia Davis, for the intervenor, the Ontario Human Rights Commission;
Béatrice Vizkelety and Stéphanie Fournier, for the intervenor, Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse;
Written submissions only by Sarah Lugtig, for the intervenors, the Manitoba Human Rights Commission and the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission;
Written submissions only by Debra McAllister and Lana Kerzner, for the intervenors, Transportation Action Now, the Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians, the Canadian Association for Community Living and the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association;
David Shannon and Paul-Claude Bérubé, for the intervenor, the Canadian Association of Independent Living Centres;
Written submissions only by Melina Buckley and Fiona Sampson, for the intervenor, the DisAbled Women’s Network Canada.
Solicitors of Record:
Bakerlaw, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;
Fasken Martineau DuMoulin, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent;
Canadian Transportation Agency, Gatineau, Quebec, for the intervenor, the Canadian Transportation Agency;
Canadian Human Rights Commission, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Canadian Human Rights Commission;
Ontario Human Rights Commission, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Ontario Human Rights Commission;
Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, Montréal, Quebec, for the intervenor, Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse;
Manitoba Human Rights Commission, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the intervenors, the Manitoba Human Rights Commission and the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission;
ARCH Disability Law Centre, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenors, Transportation Action Now, the Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians, the Canadian Association for Community Living and the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association;
Shannon Law Office, Thunder Bay, Ontario; Bérubé & Pion, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Canadian Association of Independent Living Centres;
Melina Buckley, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervenor, the DisAbled Women’s Network Canada.
This appeal was heard on May 19, 2006, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On March 23, 2007, the judgment of the Court was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:
Abella, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, LeBel and Charron, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 1 to 246;
Deschamps and Rothstein, JJ. (Binnie and Fish, JJ., concurring), dissenting – see paragraphs 247 to 370.
