Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Canada Post Corp., 2004 FC 81

Email this Content

Citations
2004 FC 81

Case tabs

Text of decision

Date: 20040121

Docket: T-1820-02

Citation: 2004 FC 81

Ottawa, Ontario, this 21^th day of January, 2004

BETWEEN:

CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Applicant

AND

CANADA POST

Respondent

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ("Tribunal").

Facts

[2] The salient facts are as follows:

-The applicant, an employee of Canada Post Corporation (CP), was off work from November 1990-February 1994 as a result of a recurring back injury.

-In July 1991, while off of work, she applied for a transfer to the Cranbrook office. A job offer was made in October but was rescinded in November 1991 when the Cranbrook manager learned about the applicant's disability status.

-The applicant filed her first grievance in March 1992. She grieved two issues: a) whether or not the cancellation of the transfer violated the collective agreement, and b) whether or not CP had failed to reasonably accommodate her at its plant in Victoria.

- She filed her first complaint with the Human Rights Commission (Commission) in June 1992 with regards to both issues, alleging discrimination on the grounds of disability.

- In November 1994, Arbitrator Joliffe released his decision with regards to the first grievance. In it, he made an award for her accommodation claim. Additionally, he found that he lacked jurisdiction to address the transfer request claim as the applicant had filed her grievance outside of the time limits set out in the collective agreement. However, as part of his finding in respect of the accommodation claim, he specifically found that "Cranbrook was not a suitable modified duties placement for the griever."

- In February 1994, the applicant returned to work at a CP plant in Victoria on a part time basis in a position that accommodated her disabilities. She alleges that in May/June of that year, the accommodation arrangement was withdrawn, leading to a renewed aggravation of her injury.

- In December 1994, the applicant again applied for a transfer to Cranbrook. It was refused later than month.

- In January 1995, applicant filed her second grievance which related only to the second refusal of her transfer request.

- In December 1997, Arbitrator McKee released his decision with regards to the second grievance. He found that he lacked the jurisdiction to consider the issue of the transfer request because the Union, which was representing the applicant, had not specifically challenged Arbitrator Joliffe's decision. In addition, he stated that the transfer refusal involved a national issue which was outside of the jurisdiction of a regular arbitrator such as himself.

- In April 1998, the applicant was declared able to return to her full time regular duties.

- On September 7th, 1999, she filed a second complaint with the Commission alleging discrimination on the basis that: a) CP had unfairly altered the accommodation arrangements in Victoria in 1994 and b) CP had unfairly failed to accede to her second request to be transferred to Cranbrook.

- In February 2000, Investigator Chambers of the Commission issued a report regarding the first complaint. In it, she effectively concluded that it would have involved undue hardship for CP to accommodate the applicant in the Cranbrook office.

- In March 2002, the Commission adopted this report and closed the first complaint. However, at the same time, it referred the second complaint to the Tribunal. The Commission provided no reasons for either decision.

- On September 30th, 2002, Tribunal Member Paul Groarke considered preliminary objections by CP and ruled that:

a) the issue of accommodation needed to be dealt with at a hearing, and

b) the issue of the second request for transfer would be dismissed by reason of abuse of process and delay.

The Commission is now seeking to quash that decision insofar as it relates to item (b) above, pursuant to section 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7.

Issue

[3] The issues raised by the Commission can be boiled down as follows:

I. Does the Tribunal have the power to dismiss without a hearing ( i.e on a preliminary motion,) a complaint referred to it by the Commission?

II. If it does have this power, was it justified in this instance to dismiss part of the complaint on the basis of abuse of process?

Standard of Review

[4] At the hearing, both parties agreed that, employing the test set out in Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817, the standard of review for issue I is correctness and for issue II is reasonableness simplicitir.

Issue I

[5] The relevant sections of the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6 ("Act") are sections 41, 42, 43,44, 48,49, 50 and 53. They are set out in Annex A for convenience.

[6] In essence, the position of the Commission is that, pursuant to section 41(1), it is obliged to deal with any issue brought before it, unless the issue is caught by one of the enumerated exceptions. Under section 43, it can then appoint an investigator (as it did in this case), whose report it must address pursuant to section 44. If the report suggests that an inquiry is warranted, the Commission can then refer the matter to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, while entitled to make its own rules under section 48.9 (2), must, pursuant to section 50(1), hold a hearing on the matter.

[7] In the Commission's view, its decision to refer a case to the Tribunal is only reviewable by the Federal Court. It submits that, the Tribunal, in making a preliminary ruling on whether or not the holding of an inquiry was an abuse of process, was effectively sitting in judicial review of the decision of the Commission.

[8] The Commission relies on International Longshore & Warehouse Union (Marine Section), Local 400 v. Oster, [2002] 2 F C 430 where Gibson, J. stated at para 29

If I am correct that a discretionary authority of the Commission to extend the one-year time limitation for the filing of a complaint that is conferred by paragraph 41(1)(e) of the Act is judicially reviewable by this Court under sections 18 [as am. by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 4] and 18.1 [as enacted idem, s. 5] of the Federal Court Act [R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7], and the foregoing cited decisions would appear to support my view in that regard, and I certainly find nothing on the face of either the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Federal Court Act to contradict that view, the position adopted by Mr. Justice Muldoon in Vermette [Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (re [page450] Vermette) (1996), 120 F.T.R. 81 (F.C.T.D.)] and adopted by the Tribunal in this matter could lead to what I regard as a rather anomalous result: this Court could judicially review a time extension by the Commission and affirm it and yet the same decision of the Commission would be open to substantive review by the Tribunal in the event that the Commission referred the complaint to the Tribunal. In the absence of specific statutory language demonstrating that Parliament intended such a result, I conclude that it did not so intend.

In the result, I conclude that the Tribunal erred against a standard of correctness, in assuming jurisdiction with respect to the Union's preliminary objections. The Union, having decided not to seek judicial review before this Court of the Commission's discretionary decision to extend the time limit under paragraph 41(1)(e) of the Act, was simply precluded from adopting the alternative recourse that it chose, that being to raise precisely the same issues that it could have raised on judicial review, before the Tribunal.

[9] As the last paragraph of the Oster decision cited above clearly demonstrates, the point in dispute in that case was whether the Tribunal, on a preliminary motion, could deal with issues that should have been raised by judicial review before this court. The answer was a clear "no".

[10] The situation here is quite different. It is not a question of whether it was an abuse of process by the Commission to have referred the matter to the Tribunal. That question, following the logic of Oster, can only be decided by judicial review before this Court. The issue in this case is whether it would be an abuse of the Tribunal's process to consider the complaint referred by the Commission.

[11] The Commission, after considering the submissions of the parties, its complaints officer's report and the comments thereon by the parties, decided to refer the matter to the Tribunal. While CP strenuously protested against the Commission's investigations, only once, in a letter dated January 31st, 2000, did CP raise the point of abuse of process, and then only as an alternative to its defence on the merits. Consequently the issue of abuse of process was never squarely put before the Commission.

[12] The Tribunal is an independent body established by statute to hold inquiries into complaints referred to it by the Commission. By virtue of section 48.9(2) of the Act, it can make its own rules of procedure. It has done so. Its Interim Rules of Procedure, dated 01-08-00, provide that an inquiry is commenced by notifying all relevant parties [Rule 4(1)] followed by sending a questionnaire to the parties [Rule 4(2)] . The Rules further provide for case conferences [Rule 5], motions and adjournments [Rule 3].

[13] Administrative tribunals are masters of their own procedure. As Sopinka, J. stated in Prassad v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1989]1 S.C.R. 560 at para. 16,

In order to arrive at the correct interpretation of statutory provisions that are susceptible of different meanings, they must be examined in the setting in which they appear. We are dealing here with the powers of an administrative tribunal in relation to its procedures. As a general rule, these tribunals are considered to be masters in their own house. In the absence of specific rules laid down by statute or regulation, they control their own procedures subject to the proviso that they comply with the rules of fairness and, where they exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions, the rules of natural justice.

[14] Consequently, it would seem to be perfectly proper for the Tribunal, at the outset of an inquiry, to entertain preliminary motions so as to clear the procedural underbrush. That is precisely what the Tribunal did in this case. It considered the preliminary motion by CP which argued that it would be an abuse of the Tribunal's process to hold an inquiry into a matter over eight years old, that had been subject to two arbitrations and a separate complaint to the Commission. Tribunal Member Groarke, on the basis of a motion explicitly addressing the issue of abuse of process, came to the conclusion that an inquiry into that part of the matter related to the transfer request would indeed be an abuse of the Tribunal's process. This was not a review of the decision to refer by the Commission. Rather, it was a de novo decision in which the Member was determining how best to deal with the issues which had been referred to the Tribunal.

[15] It strikes me as evident that one cannot maintain that the Tribunal to is the 'master in its own house' if it cannot protect its own process from abuse.

[16] I also cannot accept the proposition advanced by the Commission that the Tribunal must hold a full hearing when a matter is referred to it. The Commission, in support of its position, has referred me to subsections 50(1) and 50(3) of the Act, which provide:

50 (1) After due notice to the Commission, the complainant, the person against whom the complaint was made and, at the discretion of the member or panel conducting the inquiry, any other interested party, the member or panel shall inquire into the complaint and shall give all parties to whom notice has been given a full and ample opportunity, in person or through counsel, to appear at the inquiry, present evidence and make representations.(underlining added)

50 (3) In relation to the inquiry, the member or panel may, pursuant to section 50(3) of the Act, the member or panel may

		(a) in the same manner and to the same extent as a superior court of record, summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce any documents and things that the member or panel considers necessary for the full hearing and consideration of the complaint;
		(b) administer oaths;
		(c) subject to subsections (4) and (5), receive and accept any evidence and other information, whether on oath or by affidavit or otherwise, that the member or panel sees fit, whether or not that evidence or information is or would be admissible in a court of law;
		(d) lengthen or shorten any time limit established by the rules of procedure; and
		(e) decide any procedural or evidentiary question arising during the hearing. (Underlining added)

[17] If Parliament had intended that there be a "hearing" every time that a complaint was referred to the tribunal it would have used this term instead of the term "inquiry" which is employed in section 50(1) of the Act. The use of the term "inquiry "in section 50 (1) and the term "hearing" s. 50(3) clearly indicates that the referral of a matter to the tribunal does not necessarily have to result in a hearing in every case.

[18] Finally, it is hard to fathom a reason why it would be in anyone's interest to have the Tribunal hold a hearing in cases in where it considers that such a hearing would amount to an abuse of its process.

[19] Accordingly, I find that there is no bar in either the case law or in the statute preventing the Tribunal from dismissing by way of preliminary motion on the grounds of abuse of its process a matter referred to it by the Commission, always assuming there are valid grounds to do so.

[20] In its decision, the Tribunal also advanced as an alternate ground for dismissal the issue of delay. I am not sure that this issue is as clear-cut as that of abuse of process. After all, the Commission expressly considers that issue before referring a matter to the Tribunal. However, I do not need to decide this issue, given my findings in respect of abuse of process.

Issue II

[21] This brings us to the second issue, namely, were there valid grounds, in this case, for dismissing that part of the complaint relating to the transfer by reason of abuse of process?

[22] The facts are not in dispute. Both the 1991 and 1994 requests for a transfer by the applicant were denied because the Cranbrook facility could not accommodate her disabilities.

[23] The 1991 refusal was considered by Arbitrator Joliffe who, on November 24th, 1994, found the grievance to be time-barred but also remarked in the context of his remarks on CP's failure to accommodate:

I accept Superintendent Siegenthaler's view that for the reasons he considered at the time and addressed at some length in his testimony, Cranbrook was not a suitable modified duties placement for the griever. He had not nearly the kind of flexibility in his operation for accommodation as potentially available in Victoria.

(Respondent's record, p 116)

[24] With regards to this complaint, the Investigator for the Commission quite directly stated in her report:

It is recommended, pursuant to subparagraph 44(3)(b)(I) of the Canadian Human Rights Act that the Commission dismiss the complaint because , on the evidence, the allegation that is founded [allegation regarding failure to accommodate] has been remedied, and the other allegations [allegations regarding the refusal to transfer to Cranbrook] are unfounded.

(Respondent's Record p. 182)

[25] Finally, with respect to the 1991 refusal, the Commission found on March 21st, 2002:

With respect to Mrs. Cremasco's other complaint ( W08473) the Commission decided pursuant to paragraph 44(3)(b)(I) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, to dismiss the complaint, because, having regard to all the circumstances, an inquiry by a Tribunal is not warranted. Accordingly, the file on this matter is now closed.

[26] With regards to the 1994 refusal, Arbitrator McKee found that the decision of Arbitrator Joliffe has not been challenged by the union and therefore stood.

[27] The parties to the dispute and issues in both complaints as they related to the two refusals were the same; nor, was there a change of facts, either in terms of the complainant's medical condition or the ability of the Cranbrook facility to accommodate her. The Commission's submission to the Tribunal of July 3rd, 2002 makes this abundantly clear when it states:

The Complainant has filed two complaints Under the Canadian Human Rights Act against the respondent: the first complaint ( No. W08473), which was eventually dismissed by the Commission, and the second complaint( No. P49588), which is in essence an amendment to the first complaint and constitutes the matter now before the Tribunal. (underlining added)

(Applicant's Affidavit and Documentary Evidence Tab 3)

[28] In dismissing that part of the complaint which related to the 1994 transfer request as an abuse of process, the Tribunal stated:

It seems to me that any distinction between Canada Post's rejection of the request for a transfer in 1992 and 1994 is highly artificial. The nexus between the two arbitrations and the two complaints is more than enough to bring in the doctrine of abuse of process and the more informal principle of res judicata. The Concern is that the second complaint served primarily as a means of re-litigating the first complaint. They share the same gravamen and must stand or fall together.

This explains the significance of the investigators report on the first complaint. I was impressed by Ms. Chambers' brief assessment of the case, which is thoroughly and resolutely neutral. When she investigated the complaint, she formed the opinion that the Respondent could not accommodate the Complainant in Cranbrook without undue hardship. This is not the place for equivocation: the reality is that the Commission agreed with that assessment when the complaint was dismissed.

Is it not my role to review the Commission's decisions. But how can it be fair to proceed in these circumstances? The reality is that the request for a transfer has been visited four or five times: Twice at arbitration, at least once by an investigator, and twice by the Commission. The Commission actually went with the arbitrators, only to open the matter up for further inquiry when it decided to refer the present complaint to the Tribunal. It strikes me as an abuse of process to take the matter any further.

[29] This would appear to be a clear case of issue estoppel. In Angle v. Minister of National Revenue) (1974), 47 D.L.R. (3rd) 544 at 555 (S.C.C.), Dickson J. laid out the test for issue estoppel as follows:

Lord Guest in Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. Rayner & Keeler Ltd. (No. 2), [1967] 1 A.C. 853 at p. 935, defined the requirements of issue estoppel as:

(1) that the same question has been decided; (2) that the judicial decision which is said to create the estoppel was final; and, (3) that the parties to the judicial decision or their privies were the same persons as the parties to the proceedings in which the estoppel is raised or their privies.

[30] It is well established that issue estoppel is one of the two legs of the doctrine of res judicata.

The doctrine of res judicata is a fundamental doctrine of the justice system of Canada. It has two distinct forms: issue estoppel and cause of action estoppel.

(Donald J. Lange: The Doctrine of res Judicata in Canada, Butterworths 2000, at p. 1.)

[31] Res judicata, of course, is one of the means by which the court can prevent abuse of its process. As stated in Hendry v. Strike (1999), 29 CPC (4^th ) 18 at 21

The doctrine of res judicata reflects the interests of the state in the finality of litigation and prevents an individual from being sued more than once for the same cause. It is one of the weapons in the common law arsenal to prevent abuse of the process, and should be applied in circumstances where the parties have had the opportunity to have the issues between them litigated and adjudicated. Litigation by instalments is not tolerated.

[32] Do the facts here meet the test set out in Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. Rayner & Keeler Ltd., supra. otherwise known as the Angle test?

[33] The first leg of test asks the question: has the same issue already been decided? Arbitrator Joliffe considered the issue of the refusal of the applicant's request for a transfer to Cranbrook. He also looked at the whole issue of whether or not CP had failed to accommodate the complainant. An unwillingness to transfer her to Cranbrook, if such a possibility were feasible, would have been a failure to accommodate.

[34] Arbitrator Joliffe found that the grievance claim relating to the transfer refusal was time-barred. However, he also clearly found, as part of his overall consideration of the failure to accommodate, that the transfer to Cranbrook was not feasible. As noted above, he stated at paragraph 22 of this Reasons:

This was not a obiter remark but a central finding in his assessment of whether or not CP had

accommodated the complainant.

[35] The most recent pronouncement on the question of issue estoppel is the Supreme Court of Canada's judgement in Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 460. It supports the conclusion reached above. At paragraph 54 of that judgement, Binnie, J. states:

A cause of action has traditionally been defined as comprising every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if disputed, in order to support his or her right to the judgment of the court: Poucher v. Wilkins (1915), 33 O.L.R. 125 (C.A.). Establishing each such fact (sometimes referred to as material facts) constitutes a precondition to success. It is apparent that different causes of action may have one or more material facts in common. In this case, for example, the existence of an employment contract is a material fact common to both the ESA proceeding and to the appellant's wrongful dismissal claim in court. Issue estoppel simply means that once a material fact such as a valid employment contract is found to exist (or not to exist) by a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction, whether on the basis of evidence or admissions, the same issue cannot be relitigated in subsequent proceedings between the same parties. The estoppel, in other words, extends to the issues of fact, law, and mixed fact and law that are necessarily bound up with the determination of that "issue" in the prior proceeding.

[36] In light of the above, I find that Arbitrator Joliffe clearly considered the same material facts and decided the same issue that the Tribunal later considered in CP's preliminary motion.

[37] The second leg of the Angle test requires that the judicial decision which is said to create the estoppel was final. Danyluk, supra. establishes that arbitral decisions can qualify as final judicial decisions pursuant to the Angle test. At paragraph 36 of the Danyluk judgement, Binnie, J. cites the following passage with approval:

...I note the recent ex curia statement of Handley J. (the current editor of The Doctrine of Res Judicata) that:

The prior decision judicial, arbitral, or administrative, must have been made within jurisdiction before it can give rise to res judicata estoppels.

(Res judicata: General Principles and Recent Developments" (1999), 18 Aust. Bar Rev. 214, at p. 215)

[38] In Rasanen v. Rosemount Instruments Ltd., 17 O.R. (3d) 267, Abella J. found that a proceeding before a referee appointed pursuant to the Employment Standards Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 137, met the second leg of the Angle test for the following reasons:

...the hearing by the referee, if not technically "judicial", is designed to be an independent, fair, impartial and binding adjudicative process, and therefore satisfies the spirit of the requirement. It was a decision made in a hearing in which the appellant knew the case he had to meet, had a chance to meet it, and lost. Had he won, the decision would have been no less binding.

The same reasoning may be applied to the arbitral proceedings in this case.

[39] The third leg of the Angle test requires that the parties be the same. Clearly in this case they were. Not only were the parties the same but so were the facts, both in terms of the complainant's medical condition and the ability of the Cranbrook facility to accommodate her. As noted above, the Commission made this abundantly clear in its July 2002 submissions to the Tribunal when it stated that the second complaint was "in essence an amendment to the first complaint."

[40] I thus find that all of the requirements of the Angle test were met in respect of the refusal of the transfer request to Cranbrook. In this case, the first complaint regarding the transfer request was launched in 1992. It was addressed in an arbitral award that was accepted by the parties and which was endorsed by the Commission's Investigator and by the Commission itself. The second complaint dealt with the same issue of the transfer request, involved the same parties and was based upon the same unaltered facts. Based upon these similarities, it was reasonable for the Tribunal to conclude that the doctrines of res judicata and issue estoppel applied in this case.

[41] Even if I had not found that the doctrines of issue estoppel and res judicata applied in this case, there were other grounds which would have sustained a more general finding of abuse of process. These include (1) the fact that the issue was fully canvassed by many bodies, including the Commission and its Investigator with regards to the first complaint, (2) the lengthy time that had elapsed since the events giving rise to the second complaint, and (3) the very definitive comments made by the first arbitrator.

[42] Accordingly the appeal is hereby dismissed.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.

"K. von Finckenstein"

Judge

Annex "A"

Canadian Human Rights Act 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 (a) the alleged victim of the discriminatory practice to which the complaint relates ought to exhaust grievance or review procedures otherwise reasonably available; (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; (c) the complaint is beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission; (d) the complaint is trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith; or (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 (2) The Commission may decline to deal with a complaint referred to in paragraph 10(a) in respect of an employer where it is of the opinion that the matter has been adequately dealt with in the employer's employment equity plan prepared pursuant to section 10 of the Employment Equity Act. Meaning of "employer" (3) In this section, "employer" means a person who or organization that discharges the obligations of an employer under the Employment Equity Act. R.S., 1985, c. H-6, s. 41; 1994, c. 26, s. 34(F); 1995, c. 44, s. 49. Notice 42. (1) Subject to subsection (2), when the Commission decides not to deal with a complaint, it shall send a written notice of its decision to the complainant setting out the reason for its decision. Attributing fault for delay (2) Before deciding that a complaint will not be dealt with because a procedure referred to in paragraph 41(a) has not been exhausted, the Commission shall satisfy itself that the failure to exhaust the procedure was attributable to the complainant and not to another. 1976-77, c. 33, s. 34. Investigation Designation of investigator 43. (1) The Commission may designate a person, in this Part referred to as an "investigator", to investigate a complaint. Manner of investigation (2) An investigator shall investigate a complaint in a manner authorized by regulations made pursuant to subsection (4). Power to enter (2.1) Subject to such limitations as the Governor in Council may prescribe in the interests of national defence or security, an investigator with a warrant issued under subsection (2.2) may, at any reasonable time, enter and search any premises in order to carry out such inquiries as are reasonably necessary for the investigation of a complaint. Authority to issue warrant (2.2) Where on ex parte application a judge of the Federal Court is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is in any premises any evidence relevant to the investigation of a complaint, the judge may issue a warrant under the judge's hand authorizing the investigator named therein to enter and search those premises for any such evidence subject to such conditions as may be specified in the warrant. Use of force (2.3) In executing a warrant issued under subsection (2.2), the investigator named therein shall not use force unless the investigator is accompanied by a peace officer and the use of force has been specifically authorized in the warrant. Production of books (2.4) An investigator may require any individual found in any premises entered pursuant to this section to produce for inspection or for the purpose of obtaining copies thereof or extracts therefrom any books or other documents containing any matter relevant to the investigation being conducted by the investigator. Obstruction (3) No person shall obstruct an investigator in the investigation of a complaint. Regulations (4) The Governor in Council may make regulations (a) prescribing procedures to be followed by investigators; (b) authorizing the manner in which complaints are to be investigated pursuant to this Part; and (c) prescribing limitations for the purpose of subsection (2.1). R.S., 1985, c. H-6, s. 43; R.S., 1985, c. 31 (1st Supp.), s. 63. Report 44. (1) An investigator shall, as soon as possible after the conclusion of an investigation, submit to the Commission a report of the findings of the investigation. Action on receipt of report (2) If, on receipt of a report referred to in subsection (1), the Commission is satisfied (a) that the complainant ought to exhaust grievance or review procedures otherwise reasonably available, or (b) that the complaint could more appropriately be dealt with, initially or completely, by means of a procedure provided for under an Act of Parliament other than this Act, it shall refer the complainant to the appropriate authority. Idem (3) On receipt of a report referred to in subsection (1), the Commission (a) may request the Chairperson of the Tribunal to institute an inquiry under section 49 into the complaint to which the report relates if the Commission is satisfied (I) that, having regard to all the circumstances of the complaint, an inquiry into the complaint is warranted, and (ii) that the complaint to which the report relates should not be referred pursuant to subsection (2) or dismissed on any ground mentioned in paragraphs 41(c) to (e); or (b) shall dismiss the complaint to which the report relates if it is satisfied (I) that, having regard to all the circumstances of the complaint, an inquiry into the complaint is not warranted, or (ii) that the complaint should be dismissed on any ground mentioned in paragraphs 41(c) to (e). Notice (4) After receipt of a report referred to in subsection (1), the Commission (a) shall notify in writing the complainant and the person against whom the complaint was made of its action under subsection (2) or (3); and (b) may, in such manner as it sees fit, notify any other person whom it considers necessary to notify of its action under subsection (2) or (3). R.S., 1985, c. H-6, s. 44; R.S., 1985, c. 31 (1st Supp.), s. 64; 1998, c. 9, s. 24. Definition of "Review Committee" 45. (1) In this section and section 46, "Review Committee" has the meaning assigned to that expression by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. Complaint involving security considerations (2) When, at any stage after the filing of a complaint and before the commencement of a hearing before a member or panel in respect of the complaint, the Commission receives written notice from a minister of the Crown that the practice to which the complaint relates was based on considerations relating to the security of Canada, the Commission may (a) dismiss the complaint; or (b) refer the matter to the Review Committee. Notice (3) After receipt of a notice mentioned in subsection (2), the Commission (a) shall notify in writing the complainant and the person against whom the complaint was made of its action under paragraph (2)(a) or (b); and (b) may, in such manner as it sees fit, notify any other person whom it considers necessary to notify of its action under paragraph 2(a) or (b). Stay of procedures (4) Where the Commission has referred the matter to the Review Committee pursuant to paragraph (2)(b), it shall not deal with the complaint until the Review Committee has, pursuant to subsection 46(1), provided it with a report in relation to the matter. Application of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act (5) Where a matter is referred to the Review Committee pursuant to paragraph (2)(b), subsections 39(2) and (3) and sections 43, 44 and 47 to 51 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, to the matter as if the referral were a complaint made pursuant to section 42 of that Act except that a reference in any of those provisions to "deputy head" shall be read as a reference to the minister referred to in subsection (2). Statement to be sent to person affected (6) The Review Committee shall, as soon as practicable after a matter in relation to a complaint is referred to it pursuant to paragraph (2)(b), send to the complainant a statement summarizing such information available to it as will enable the complainant to be as fully informed as possible of the circumstances giving rise to the referral. R.S., 1985, c. H-6, s. 45; 1998, c. 9, s. 25. Report 46. (1) On completion of its investigation under section 45, the Review Committee shall, not later than forty-five days after the matter is referred to it pursuant to paragraph 45(2)(b), provide the Commission, the minister referred to in subsection 45(2) and the complainant with a report containing the findings of the Committee. Action on receipt of report (2) After considering a report provided pursuant to subsection (1), the Commission (a) may dismiss the complaint or, where it does not do so, shall proceed to deal with the complaint pursuant to this Part; and (b) shall notify, in writing, the complainant and the person against whom the complaint was made of its action under paragraph (a) and may, in such manner as it sees fit, notify any other person whom it considers necessary to notify of that action. 1984, c. 21, s. 73. Conciliator Appointment of conciliator 47. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Commission may, on the filing of a complaint, or if the complaint has not been (a) settled in the course of investigation by an investigator, (b) referred or dismissed under subsection 44(2) or (3) or paragraph 45(2)(a) or 46(2)(a), or (c) settled after receipt by the parties of the notice referred to in subsection 44(4), appoint a person, in this Part referred to as a "conciliator", for the purpose of attempting to bring about a settlement of the complaint. Eligibility (2) A person is not eligible to act as a conciliator in respect of a complaint if that person has already acted as an investigator in respect of that complaint. Confidentiality (3) Any information received by a conciliator in the course of attempting to reach a settlement of a complaint is confidential and may not be disclosed except with the consent of the person who gave the information. 1976-77, c. 33, s. 37; 1984, c. 21, s. 74. Settlement Referral of a settlement to Commission 48. (1) When, at any stage after the filing of a complaint and before the commencement of a hearing before a Human Rights Tribunal in respect thereof, a settlement is agreed on by the parties, the terms of the settlement shall be referred to the Commission for approval or rejection. Certificate (2) If the Commission approves or rejects the terms of a settlement referred to in subsection (1), it shall so certify and notify the parties. Enforcement of settlement (3) A settlement approved under this section may, for the purpose of enforcement, be made an order of the Federal Court on application to that Court by the Commission or a party to the settlement. R.S., 1985, c. H-6, s. 48; 1998, c. 9, s. 26. Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Establishment of Tribunal 48.1 (1) There is hereby established a tribunal to be known as the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal consisting, subject to subsection (6), of a maximum of fifteen members, including a Chairperson and a Vice-chairperson, as may be appointed by the Governor in Council. Qualifications for appointment of members (2) Persons appointed as members of the Tribunal must have experience, expertise and interest in, and sensitivity to, human rights. Legal qualifications (3) The Chairperson and Vice-chairperson must be members in good standing of the bar of a province or the Chambre des notaires du Québec for at least ten years and at least two of the other members of the Tribunal must be members in good standing of the bar of a province or the Chambre des notaires du Québec. Regional representation (4) Appointments are to be made having regard to the need for regional representation in the membership of the Tribunal. Appointment of temporary members -- incapacity (5) If a member is absent or incapacitated, the Governor in Council may, despite subsection (1), appoint a temporary substitute member to act during the absence or incapacity. Appointment of temporary members -- workload (6) The Governor in Council may appoint temporary members to the Tribunal for a term of not more than three years whenever, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, the workload of the Tribunal so requires. R.S., 1985, c. 31 (1st Supp.), s. 65; 1998, c. 9, s. 27. Terms of office 48.2 (1) The Chairperson and Vice-chairperson are to be appointed to hold office during good behaviour for terms of not more than seven years, and the other members are to be appointed to hold office during good behaviour for terms of not more than five years, but the Chairperson may be removed from office by the Governor in Council for cause and the Vice-chairperson and the other members may be subject to remedial or disciplinary measures in accordance with section 48.3. Acting after expiration of appointment (2) A member whose appointment expires may, with the approval of the Chairperson, conclude any inquiry that the member has begun, and a person performing duties under this subsection is deemed to be a part-time member for the purposes of sections 48.3, 48.6, 50 and 52 to 58. Reappointment (3) The Chairperson, Vice-chairperson or any other member whose term has expired is eligible for reappointment in the same or any other capacity. R.S., 1985, c. 31 (1st Supp.), s. 65; 1998, c. 9, s. 27. Remedial and disciplinary measures 48.3 (1) The Chairperson of the Tribunal may request the Minister of Justice to decide whether a member should be subject to remedial or disciplinary measures for any reason set out in paragraphs (13)(a) to (d). Measures (2) On receipt of the request, the Minister may take one or more of the following measures: (a) obtain, in an informal and expeditious manner, any information that the Minister considers necessary; (b) refer the matter for mediation, if the Minister is satisfied that the issues in relation to the request may be appropriately resolved by mediation; (c) request of the Governor in Council that an inquiry be held under subsection (3); or (d) advise the Chairperson that the Minister considers that it is not necessary to take further measures under this Act. Appointment of inquirer (3) On receipt of a request referred to in paragraph (2)(c), the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, appoint a judge of a superior court to conduct the inquiry. Powers (4) The judge has all the powers, rights and privileges that are vested in a superior court, including the power to (a) issue a summons requiring any person to appear at the time and place specified in the summons in order to testify about all matters within the person's knowledge relative to the inquiry and to produce any document or thing relative to the inquiry that the person has or controls; and (b) administer oaths and examine any person on oath. Staff (5) The judge may engage the services of counsel and other persons having technical or specialized knowledge to assist the judge in conducting the inquiry, and may establish the terms and conditions of their engagement and, with the approval of the Treasury Board, fix and pay their remuneration and expenses. Inquiry in public (6) Subject to subsections (7) and (8), an inquiry shall be conducted in public. Confidentiality of inquiry (7) The judge may, on application, take any appropriate measures and make any order that the judge considers necessary to ensure the confidentiality of the inquiry if, after having considered all available alternative measures, the judge is satisfied that (a) there is a real and substantial risk that matters involving public security will be disclosed; (b) there is a real and substantial risk to the fairness of the inquiry such that the need to prevent disclosure outweighs the societal interest that the inquiry be conducted in public; or (c) there is a serious possibility that the life, liberty or security of a person will be endangered. Confidentiality of application (8) If the judge considers it appropriate, the judge may take any measures and make any order that the judge considers necessary to ensure the confidentiality of a hearing held in respect of an application under subsection (7). Rules of evidence (9) In conducting an inquiry, the judge is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence and may receive, and base a decision on, evidence presented in the proceedings that the judge considers credible or trustworthy in the circumstances of the case. Intervenors (10) An interested party may, with leave of the judge, intervene in an inquiry on any terms and conditions that the judge considers appropriate. Right to be heard (11) The member who is the subject of the inquiry shall be given reasonable notice of the subject-matter of the inquiry and of the time and place of any hearing and shall be given an opportunity, in person or by counsel, to be heard at the hearing, to cross-examine witnesses and to present evidence. Report to Minister (12) After an inquiry has been completed, the judge shall submit a report containing the judge's findings and recommendations, if any, to the Minister. Recommendations (13) The judge may, in the report, recommend that the member be suspended without pay or removed from office or that any other disciplinary measure or any remedial measure be taken if, in the judge's opinion, the member (a) has become incapacitated from the proper execution of that office by reason of infirmity; (b) has been guilty of misconduct; (c) has failed in the proper execution of that office; or (d) has been placed, by conduct or otherwise, in a position that is incompatible with the due execution of that office. Transmission of report to Governor in Council (14) When the Minister receives the report, the Minister shall send it to the Governor in Council who may, if the Governor in Council considers it appropriate, suspend the member without pay, remove the member from office or impose any other disciplinary measure or any remedial measure. R.S., 1985, c. 31 (1st Supp.), s. 65; 1998, c. 9, s. 27. Status of members 48.4 (1) The Chairperson and Vice-chairperson are to be appointed as full-time members of the Tribunal, and the other members are to be appointed as either full-time or part-time members. Functions of Chairperson (2) The Chairperson is the chief executive officer of the Tribunal and has supervision over and direction of its work, including the allocation of work among the members and the management of the Tribunal's internal affairs. Functions of Vice-chairperson (3) The Vice-chairperson shall assist the Chairperson and shall perform the functions of the Chairperson if the Chairperson is absent or unable to act or the office of Chairperson is vacant. Acting Chairperson (4) The Governor in Council may authorize a member of the Tribunal to perform the functions of the Chairperson on a temporary basis if the Chairperson and Vice-chairperson are absent or unable to act or if both of those offices are vacant. R.S., 1985, c. 31 (1st Supp.), s. 65; 1998, c. 9, s. 27. Residence 48.5 The full-time members of the Tribunal shall reside in the National Capital Region, as described in the schedule to the National Capital Act, or within forty kilometres of that Region. R.S., 1985, c. 31 (1st Supp.), s. 65; 1998, c. 9, s. 27. Remuneration 48.6 (1) The members of the Tribunal shall be paid such remuneration as may be fixed by the Governor in Council. Travel expenses (2) Members are entitled to be paid travel and living expenses incurred in carrying out duties as members of the Tribunal while absent from their place of residence, but the expenses must not exceed the maximum limits authorized by the Treasury Board directives for employees of the Government of Canada. Deemed employment in public service of Canada (3) Members are deemed to be employed in the public service of Canada for the purposes of the Government Employees Compensation Act and any regulations made under section 9 of the Aeronautics Act. 1998, c. 9, s. 27. Head office 48.7 The head office of the Tribunal shall be in the National Capital Region, as described in the schedule to the National Capital Act. 1998, c. 9, s. 27. Registrar and other staff 48.8 (1) The registrar and the other officers and employees necessary for the proper conduct of the work of the Tribunal shall be appointed in accordance with the Public Service Employment Act. Technical experts (2) The Chairperson may engage persons having technical or special knowledge to assist or advise members of the Tribunal in any matter and may, with the approval of the Treasury Board, fix their remuneration and reimburse their expenses in the same manner as the expenses of members of the Tribunal are reimbursed. 1998, c. 9, s. 27. Conduct of proceedings 48.9 (1) Proceedings before the Tribunal shall be conducted as informally and expeditiously as the requirements of natural justice and the rules of procedure allow. Tribunal rules of procedure (2) The Chairperson may make rules of procedure governing the practice and procedure before the Tribunal, including, but not limited to, rules governing (a) the giving of notices to parties; (b) the addition of parties and interested persons to the proceedings; (c) the summoning of witnesses; (d) the production and service of documents; (e) discovery proceedings; (f) pre-hearing conferences; (g) the introduction of evidence; (h) time limits within which hearings must be held and decisions must be made; and (I) awards of interest. Publication of proposed rules (3) Subject to subsection (4), a copy of each rule that the Tribunal proposes to make shall be published in the Canada Gazette and a reasonable opportunity shall be given to interested persons to make representations with respect to it. Exception (4) A proposed rule need not be published more than once, whether or not it has been amended as a result of any representations. 1998, c. 9, s. 27. Inquiries into Complaints Request for inquiry 49. (1) At any stage after the filing of a complaint, the Commission may request the Chairperson of the Tribunal to institute an inquiry into the complaint if the Commission is satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances of the complaint, an inquiry is warranted. Chairperson to institute inquiry (2) On receipt of a request, the Chairperson shall institute an inquiry by assigning a member of the Tribunal to inquire into the complaint, but the Chairperson may assign a panel of three members if he or she considers that the complexity of the complaint requires the inquiry to be conducted by three members. Chair of panel (3) If a panel of three members has been assigned to inquire into the complaint, the Chairperson shall designate one of them to chair the inquiry, but the Chairperson shall chair the inquiry if he or she is a member of the panel. Copy of rules to parties (4) The Chairperson shall make a copy of the rules of procedure available to each party to the complaint. Qualification of member (5) If the complaint involves a question about whether another Act or a regulation made under another Act is inconsistent with this Act or a regulation made under it, the member assigned to inquire into the complaint or, if three members have been assigned, the member chairing the inquiry, must be a member of the bar of a province or the Chambre des notaires du Québec. Question raised subsequently (6) If a question as described in subsection (5) arises after a member or panel has been assigned and the requirements of that subsection are not met, the inquiry shall nevertheless proceed with the member or panel as designated. R.S., 1985, c. H-6, s. 49; R.S., 1985, c. 31 (1st Supp.), s. 66; 1998, c. 9, s. 27. Conduct of inquiry 50. (1) After due notice to the Commission, the complainant, the person against whom the complaint was made and, at the discretion of the member or panel conducting the inquiry, any other interested party, the member or panel shall inquire into the complaint and shall give all parties to whom notice has been given a full and ample opportunity, in person or through counsel, to appear at the inquiry, present evidence and make representations. Power to determine questions of law or fact (2) In the course of hearing and determining any matter under inquiry, the member or panel may decide all questions of law or fact necessary to determining the matter. Additional powers (3) In relation to a hearing of the inquiry, the member or panel may (a) in the same manner and to the same extent as a superior court of record, summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce any documents and things that the member or panel considers necessary for the full hearing and consideration of the complaint; (b) administer oaths; (c) subject to subsections (4) and (5), receive and accept any evidence and other information, whether on oath or by affidavit or otherwise, that the member or panel sees fit, whether or not that evidence or information is or would be admissible in a court of law; (d) lengthen or shorten any time limit established by the rules of procedure; and (e) decide any procedural or evidentiary question arising during the hearing. Limitation in relation to evidence (4) The member or panel may not admit or accept as evidence anything that would be inadmissible in a court by reason of any privilege under the law of evidence. Conciliators as witnesses (5) A conciliator appointed to settle the complaint is not a competent or compellable witness at the hearing. Witness fees (6) Any person summoned to attend the hearing is entitled in the discretion of the member or panel to receive the same fees and allowances as those paid to persons summoned to attend before the Federal Court. R.S., 1985, c. H-6, s. 50; 1998, c. 9, s. 27. Duty of Commission on appearing 51. In appearing at a hearing, presenting evidence and making representations, the Commission shall adopt such position as, in its opinion, is in the public interest having regard to the nature of the complaint. R.S., 1985, c. H-6, s. 51; 1998, c. 9, s. 27. Hearing in public subject to confidentiality order 52. (1) An inquiry shall be conducted in public, but the member or panel conducting the inquiry may, on application, take any measures and make any order that the member or panel considers necessary to ensure the confidentiality of the inquiry if the member or panel is satisfied, during the inquiry or as a result of the inquiry being conducted in public, that (a) there is a real and substantial risk that matters involving public security will be disclosed; (b) there is a real and substantial risk to the fairness of the inquiry such that the need to prevent disclosure outweighs the societal interest that the inquiry be conducted in public; (c) there is a real and substantial risk that the disclosure of personal or other matters will cause undue hardship to the persons involved such that the need to prevent disclosure outweighs the societal interest that the inquiry be conducted in public; or (d) there is a serious possibility that the life, liberty or security of a person will be endangered. Confidentiality of application (2) If the member or panel considers it appropriate, the member or panel may take any measures and make any order that the member or panel considers necessary to ensure the confidentiality of a hearing held in respect of an application under subsection (1). R.S., 1985, c. H-6, s. 52; 1998, c. 9, s. 27. Complaint dismissed 53. (1) At the conclusion of an inquiry, the member or panel conducting the inquiry shall dismiss the complaint if the member or panel finds that the complaint is not substantiated. Complaint substantiated (2) If at the conclusion of the inquiry the member or panel finds that the complaint is substantiated, the member or panel may, subject to section 54, make an order against the person found to be engaging or to have engaged in the discriminatory practice and include in the order any of the following terms that the member or panel considers appropriate: (a) that the person cease the discriminatory practice and take measures, in consultation with the Commission on the general purposes of the measures, to redress the practice or to prevent the same or a similar practice from occurring in future, including (i) the adoption of a special program, plan or arrangement referred to in subsection 16(1), or (ii) making an application for approval and implementing a plan under section 17; (b) that the person make available to the victim of the discriminatory practice, on the first reasonable occasion, the rights, opportunities or privileges that are being or were denied the victim as a result of the practice; (c) that the person compensate the victim for any or all of the wages that the victim was deprived of and for any expenses incurred by the victim as a result of the discriminatory practice; (d) that the person compensate the victim for any or all additional costs of obtaining alternative goods, services, facilities or accommodation and for any expenses incurred by the victim as a result of the discriminatory practice; and (e) that the person compensate the victim, by an amount not exceeding twenty thousand dollars, for any pain and suffering that the victim experienced as a result of the discriminatory practice. Special compensation (3) In addition to any order under subsection (2), the member or panel may order the person to pay such compensation not exceeding twenty thousand dollars to the victim as the member or panel may determine if the member or panel finds that the person is engaging or has engaged in the discriminatory practice wilfully or recklessly. Interest (4) Subject to the rules made under section 48.9, an order to pay compensation under this section may include an award of interest at a rate and for a period that the member or panel considers appropriate. R.S., 1985, c. H-6, s. 53; 1998, c. 9, s. 27.		*Loi canadienne sur les droits de la personne* 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) 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) 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) la plainte n'est pas de sa compétence; d) la plainte est frivole, vexatoire ou entachée de mauvaise foi; 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. Refus d'examen (2) La Commission peut refuser d'examiner une plainte de discrimination fondée sur l'alinéa 10a) et dirigée contre un employeur si elle estime que l'objet de la plainte est traité de façon adéquate dans le plan d'équité en matière d'emploi que l'employeur prépare en conformité avec l'article 10 de la Loi sur l'équité en matière d'emploi. Définition de "employeur" (3) Au présent article, « employeur » désigne toute personne ou organisation chargée de l'exécution des obligations de l'employeur prévues par la Loi sur l'équité en matière d'emploi. L.R. (1985), ch. H-6, art. 41; 1994, ch. 26, art. 34(F); 1995, ch. 44, art. 49. Avis 42. (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), la Commission motive par écrit sa décision auprès du plaignant dans les cas où elle décide que la plainte est irrecevable. Imputabilité du défaut (2) Avant de décider qu'une plainte est irrecevable pour le motif que les recours ou procédures mentionnés à l'alinéa 41a) n'ont pas été épuisés, la Commission s'assure que le défaut est exclusivement imputable au plaignant. 1976-77, ch. 33, art. 34. Enquête Nomination de l'enquêteur 43. (1) La Commission peut charger une personne, appelée, dans la présente loi, « l'enquêteur » , d'enquêter sur une plainte. Procédure d'enquête (2) L'enquêteur doit respecter la procédure d'enquête prévue aux règlements pris en vertu du paragraphe (4). Pouvoir de visite (2.1) Sous réserve des restrictions que le gouverneur en conseil peut imposer dans l'intérêt de la défense nationale ou de la sécurité, l'enquêteur muni du mandat visé au paragraphe (2.2) peut, à toute heure convenable, pénétrer dans tous locaux et y perquisitionner, pour y procéder aux investigations justifiées par l'enquête. Délivrance du mandat (2.2) Sur demande ex parte, un juge de la Cour fédérale peut, s'il est convaincu, sur la foi d'une dénonciation sous serment, qu'il y a des motifs raisonnables de croire à la présence dans des locaux d'éléments de preuve utiles à l'enquête, signer un mandat autorisant, sous réserve des conditions éventuellement fixées, l'enquêteur qui y est nommé à perquisitionner dans ces locaux. Usage de la force (2.3) L'enquêteur ne peut recourir à la force dans l'exécution du mandat que si celui-ci en autorise expressément l'usage et que si lui-même est accompagné d'un agent de la paix. Examen des livres (2.4) L'enquêteur peut obliger toute personne se trouvant sur les lieux visés au présent article à communiquer, pour examen, ou reproduction totale ou partielle, les livres et documents qui contiennent des renseignements utiles à l'enquête. Entraves (3) Il est interdit d'entraver l'action de l'enquêteur. Règlements (4) Le gouverneur en conseil peut fixer, par règlement : a) la procédure à suivre par les enquêteurs; b) les modalités d'enquête sur les plaintes dont ils sont saisis au titre de la présente partie; c) les restrictions nécessaires à l'application du paragraphe (2.1). L.R. (1985), ch. H-6, art. 43; L.R. (1985), ch. 31 (1er suppl.), art. 63. Rapport 44. (1) L'enquêteur présente son rapport à la Commission le plus tôt possible après la fin de l'enquête. Suite à donner au rapport (2) La Commission renvoie le plaignant à l'autorité compétente dans les cas où, sur réception du rapport, elle est convaincue, selon le cas : a) que le plaignant devrait épuiser les recours internes ou les procédures d'appel ou de règlement des griefs qui lui sont normalement ouverts; b) que la plainte pourrait avantageusement être instruite, dans un premier temps ou à toutes les étapes, selon des procédures prévues par une autre loi fédérale. Idem (3) Sur réception du rapport d'enquête prévu au paragraphe (1), la Commission : a) peut demander au président du Tribunal de désigner, en application de l'article 49, un membre pour instruire la plainte visée par le rapport, si elle est convaincue : (i) d'une part, que, compte tenu des circonstances relatives à la plainte, l'examen de celle-ci est justifié, (ii) d'autre part, qu'il n'y a pas lieu de renvoyer la plainte en application du paragraphe (2) ni de la rejeter aux termes des alinéas 41c) à e); b) rejette la plainte, si elle est convaincue : (i) soit que, compte tenu des circonstances relatives à la plainte, l'examen de celle-ci n'est pas justifié, (ii) soit que la plainte doit être rejetée pour l'un des motifs énoncés aux alinéas 41c) à e). Avis (4) Après réception du rapport, la Commission : a) informe par écrit les parties à la plainte de la décision qu'elle a prise en vertu des paragraphes (2) ou (3); b) peut informer toute autre personne, de la manière qu'elle juge indiquée, de la décision qu'elle a prise en vertu des paragraphes (2) ou (3). L.R. (1985), ch. H-6, art. 44; L.R. (1985), ch. 31 (1er suppl.), art. 64; 1998, ch. 9, art. 24. Définition de "comité de surveillanc" 45. (1) Au présent article et à l'article 46, « comité de surveillance » s'entend au sens de la Loi sur le Service canadien du renseignement de sécurité. Plainte mettant en cause la sécurité (2) Si, à toute étape entre le dépôt d'une plainte et le début d'une audience à ce sujet devant un membre instructeur, la Commission reçoit un avis écrit d'un ministre fédéral l'informant que les actes qui font l'objet de la plainte mettent en cause la sécurité du Canada, elle peut : a) soit rejeter la plainte; b) soit transmettre l'affaire au comité de surveillance. Avis (3) Sur réception de l'avis mentionné au paragraphe (2), la Commission : a) informe par écrit les parties à la plainte de la décision qu'elle a prise en vertu des alinéas (2)a) ou b); b) peut informer toute autre personne, de la manière qu'elle juge indiquée, de la décision qu'elle a prise en vertu des alinéas (2)a) ou b). Suspension des procédures (4) Lorsqu'elle a transmis une affaire au comité de surveillance en vertu de l'alinéa (2)b), la Commission ne peut poursuivre l'étude d'une plainte avant que celui-ci ne lui ait remis son rapport à cet égard en vertu du paragraphe 46(1). Application de la Loi sur le Service canadien du renseignement de sécurité (5) Lorsqu'une affaire est transmise au comité de surveillance en vertu de l'alinéa (2)b), les paragraphes 39(2) et (3) et les articles 43, 44 et 47 à 51 de la Loi sur le Service canadien du renseignement de sécurité s'appliquent, compte tenu des adaptations de circonstance, à cette affaire comme s'il s'agissait d'une plainte présentée en vertu de l'article 42 de cette loi, sauf qu'un renvoi dans l'une de ces dispositions à l'administrateur général vaut renvoi au ministre visé au paragraphe (2). Résumé envoyé à la personne visée (6) Afin de permettre au plaignant d'être informé de la façon la plus complète possible des circonstances qui ont donné lieu à la transmission de l'affaire en vertu de l'alinéa (2)b), le comité de surveillance lui envoie, dans les plus brefs délais possible après la transmission, un résumé des informations dont il dispose à ce sujet. L.R. (1985), ch. H-6, art. 45; 1998, ch. 9, art. 25. Rapport 46. (1) À l'issue de son enquête et au plus tard quarante-cinq jours après qu'une affaire lui a été transmise en vertu de l'alinéa 45(2)b), le comité de surveillance remet à la Commission, au ministre visé au paragraphe 45(2) et au directeur un rapport contenant ses conclusions. Conséquences du rapport (2) Après examen du rapport remis en vertu du paragraphe (1), la Commission : a) peut rejeter la plainte ou, si elle ne la rejette pas, doit continuer à l'étudier en conformité avec la présente partie; b) doit informer par écrit les parties à la plainte de la décision qu'elle a prise en vertu de l'alinéa a) et peut informer toute autre personne, de la manière qu'elle juge indiquée, de cette décision. 1984, ch. 21, art. 73. Conciliation Nomination du conciliateur 47. (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), la Commission peut charger un conciliateur d'en arriver à un règlement de la plainte, soit dès le dépôt de celle-ci, soit ultérieurement dans l'un des cas suivants : a) l'enquête ne mène pas à un règlement; b) la plainte n'est pas renvoyée ni rejetée en vertu des paragraphes 44(2) ou (3) ou des alinéas 45(2)a) ou 46(2)a); c) la plainte n'est pas réglée après réception par les parties de l'avis prévu au paragraphe 44(4). Incompatibilité (2) Pour une plainte donnée, les fonctions d'enquêteur et de conciliateur sont incompatibles. Renseignements confidentiels (3) Les renseignements recueillis par le conciliateur sont confidentiels et ne peuvent être divulgués sans le consentement de la personne qui les a fournis. 1976-77, ch. 33, art. 37; 1980-81-82-83, ch. 143, art. 17; 1984, ch. 21, art. 74. Règlement Présentation des conditions de règlement à la Commission 48. (1) Les parties qui conviennent d'un règlement à toute étape postérieure au dépôt de la plainte, mais avant le début de l'audience d'un tribunal des droits de la personne, en présentent les conditions à l'approbation de la Commission. Certificat (2) Dans le cas prévu au paragraphe (1), la Commission certifie sa décision et la communique aux parties. Exécution du règlement (3) Le règlement approuvé par la Commission peut, par requête d'une partie ou de la Commission à la Cour fédérale, être assimilé à une ordonnance de cette juridiction et être exécuté comme telle. L.R. (1985), ch. H-6, art. 48; 1998, ch. 9, art. 26. Tribunal canadien des droits de la personne Constitution du Tribunal 48.1 (1) Est constitué le Tribunal canadien des droits de la personne composé, sous réserve du paragraphe (6), d'au plus quinze membres, dont le président et le vice-président, nommés par le gouverneur en conseil. Choix des membres (2) Les membres doivent avoir une expérience et des compétences dans le domaine des droits de la personne, y être sensibilisés et avoir un intérêt marqué pour ce domaine. Exigences pour certains membres (3) Outre le président et le vice-président, qui doivent l'être depuis au moins dix ans, au moins deux autres membres du Tribunal doivent être membres en règle du barreau d'une province ou de la Chambre des notaires du Québec. Représentation des régions (4) Le gouverneur en conseil procède aux nominations avec le souci d'assurer une bonne représentation des régions. Membres nommés à titre provisoire (5) Malgré le paragraphe (1), le gouverneur en conseil peut, en cas d'empêchement ou d'absence d'un membre, lui nommer un remplaçant à titre provisoire. Vacataires (6) Le gouverneur en conseil peut nommer des vacataires pour un mandat maximal de trois ans lorsqu'il estime que la charge de travail du Tribunal le justifie. L.R. (1985), ch. 31 (1er suppl.), art. 65; 1998, ch. 9, art. 27. Durée du mandat 48.2 (1) Le président et le vice-président du Tribunal sont nommés à titre inamovible pour un mandat maximal de sept ans et les autres membres le sont pour un mandat maximal de cinq ans, sous réserve, quant au président, de la révocation motivée que prononce le gouverneur en conseil et, quant aux autres membres, des mesures correctives ou disciplinaires prévues à l'article 48.3. Prolongation du mandat (2) Le membre dont le mandat est échu peut, avec l'agrément du président, terminer les affaires dont il est saisi. Il est alors réputé être un membre à temps partiel pour l'application des articles 48.3, 48.6, 50 et 52 à 58. Nouveau mandat (3) Le président, le vice-président ou tout autre membre peut recevoir un nouveau mandat, aux fonctions identiques ou non. L.R. (1985), ch. 31 (1er suppl.), art. 65; 1998, ch. 9, art. 27. Mesures correctives et disciplinaires 48.3 (1) Le président du Tribunal peut demander au ministre de la Justice de décider si des mesures correctives ou disciplinaires s'imposent à l'égard d'un membre pour tout motif énoncé aux alinéas (13)a) à d). Mesures (2) Sur réception de la demande, le ministre peut prendre une ou plusieurs des mesures suivantes : a) obtenir de façon expéditive et sans formalisme les renseignements qu'il estime nécessaires; b) soumettre la question à la médiation s'il estime qu'elle peut ainsi être réglée de façon satisfaisante; c) demander au gouverneur en conseil la tenue de l'enquête prévue au paragraphe (3); d) informer le président qu'il n'estime pas nécessaire de prendre d'autres mesures au titre de la présente loi. Nomination d'un enquêteur (3) Saisi de la demande prévue à l'alinéa (2)c), le gouverneur en conseil peut, sur recommandation du ministre, nommer à titre d'enquêteur un juge d'une juridiction supérieure. Pouvoirs d'enquête (4) L'enquêteur a alors les attributions d'une juridiction supérieure; il peut notamment : a) par citation adressée aux personnes ayant connaissance des faits se rapportant à l'affaire dont il est saisi, leur enjoindre de comparaître comme témoins aux date, heure et lieu indiqués et de produire tous documents ou autres pièces, utiles à l'affaire, dont elles ont la possession ou la responsabilité; b) faire prêter serment et interroger sous serment. Personnel (5) L'enquêteur peut retenir les services des experts, avocats ou autres personnes dont il estime le concours utile pour l'enquête, définir leurs fonctions et leurs conditions d'emploi et, avec l'approbation du Conseil du Trésor, fixer et payer leur rémunération et leurs frais. Enquête publique (6) Sous réserve des paragraphes (7) et (8), l'enquête est publique. Confidentialité de l'enquête (7) L'enquêteur peut, sur demande en ce sens, prendre toute mesure ou rendre toute ordonnance pour assurer la confidentialité de l'enquête s'il est convaincu, après examen de toutes les solutions de rechange à sa disposition, que, selon le cas : a) il y a un risque sérieux de divulgation de questions touchant la sécurité publique; b) il y a un risque sérieux d'atteinte au droit à une enquête équitable de sorte que la nécessité d'empêcher la divulgation de renseignements l'emporte sur l'intérêt qu'a la société à ce que l'enquête soit publique; c) il y a une sérieuse possibilité que la vie, la liberté ou la sécurité d'une personne puisse être mise en danger par la publicité des débats. Confidentialité de la demande (8) L'enquêteur peut, s'il l'estime indiqué, prendre toute mesure ou rendre toute ordonnance qu'il juge nécessaire pour assurer la confidentialité de la demande. Règles de preuve (9) L'enquêteur n'est pas lié par les règles juridiques ou techniques de présentation de la preuve. Il peut recevoir les éléments qu'il juge crédibles ou dignes de foi en l'occurrence et fonder sur eux ses conclusions. Intervenant (10) L'enquêteur peut, par ordonnance, accorder à tout intervenant la qualité pour agir à l'enquête, selon les modalités qu'il estime indiquées. Avis de l'audience (11) Le membre en cause doit être informé, suffisamment à l'avance, de l'objet de l'enquête, ainsi que des date, heure et lieu de l'audience, et avoir la possibilité de se faire entendre, de contre-interroger les témoins et de présenter tous éléments de preuve utiles à sa décharge, personnellement ou par procureur. Rapport au ministre (12) À l'issue de l'enquête, l'enquêteur présente au ministre un rapport faisant état de ses conclusions. Recommandations (13) L'enquêteur peut, dans son rapport, recommander la révocation, la suspension sans traitement ou toute autre mesure disciplinaire ou toute mesure corrective s'il est d'avis que le membre en cause, selon le cas : a) n'est plus en état de s'acquitter efficacement de ses fonctions pour cause d'invalidité; b) s'est rendu coupable de manquement à l'honneur ou à la dignité; c) a manqué aux devoirs de sa charge; d) s'est placé en situation d'incompatibilité, par sa propre faute ou pour toute autre cause. Transmission du dossier au gouverneur en conseil (14) Le cas échéant, le ministre transmet le rapport au gouverneur en conseil qui peut, s'il l'estime indiqué, révoquer le membre en cause, le suspendre sans traitement ou imposer à son égard toute autre mesure disciplinaire ou toute mesure corrective. L.R. (1985), ch. 31 (1er suppl.), art. 65; 1998, ch. 9, art. 27. Statut des membres 48.4 (1) Le président et le vice-président sont nommés à temps plein et les autres membres le sont à temps plein ou à temps partiel. Fonctions du président (2) Le président est le premier dirigeant du Tribunal; à ce titre, il en assure la direction et en contrôle les activités, notamment en ce qui a trait à la répartition des tâches entre les membres et à la gestion de ses affaires internes. Fonctions du vice-président (3) Le vice-président assiste le président dans ses fonctions et, en cas d'absence ou d'empêchement du président ou de vacance de son poste, assume la présidence. Empêchement du vice-président (4) En cas d'absence, d'empêchement ou de vacance du président et du vice-président, le gouverneur en conseil peut désigner un autre membre pour assumer la présidence. L.R. (1985), ch. 31 (1er suppl.), art. 65; 1998, ch. 9, art. 27. Lieu de résidence 48.5 Les membres à temps plein doivent résider dans la région de la capitale nationale définie à l'annexe de la Loi sur la capitale nationale ou dans une zone périphérique de quarante kilomètres. L.R. (1985), ch. 31 (1er suppl.), art. 65; 1998, ch. 9, art. 27. Rémunération 48.6 (1) Les membres du Tribunal reçoivent la rémunération que fixe le gouverneur en conseil. Frais de déplacement (2) Ils ont droit aux frais de déplacement et de subsistance entraînés par l'accomplissement, hors du lieu de leur résidence habituelle, des fonctions qui leur sont confiées en application de la présente loi, sous réserve des montants maximaux que les instructions du Conseil du Trésor fixent en semblable matière pour les fonctionnaires du gouvernement du Canada. Statut (3) Ils sont réputés rattachés à l'administration publique fédérale pour l'application de la Loi sur l'indemnisation des agents de l'État et des règlements pris sous le régime de l'article 9 de la Loi sur l'aéronautique. 1998, ch. 9, art. 27. Siège 48.7 Le siège du Tribunal est fixé dans la région de la capitale nationale définie à l'annexe de la Loi sur la capitale nationale. 1998, ch. 9, art. 27. Personnel 48.8 (1) La nomination du registraire et des autres membres du personnel nécessaire au bon fonctionnement du Tribunal se fait conformément à la Loi sur l'emploi dans la fonction publique. Experts (2) Le président du Tribunal peut engager des experts pour aider et conseiller les membres et, avec l'approbation du Conseil du Trésor, fixer leur rémunération. Ils reçoivent les autres indemnités accordées aux membres du Tribunal. 1998, ch. 9, art. 27. Fonctionnement 48.9 (1) L'instruction des plaintes se fait sans formalisme et de façon expéditive dans le respect des principes de justice naturelle et des règles de pratique. Règles de pratique (2) Le président du Tribunal peut établir des règles de pratique régissant, notamment : a) l'envoi des avis aux parties; b) l'adjonction de parties ou d'intervenants à l'affaire; c) l'assignation des témoins; d) la production et la signification de documents; e) les enquêtes préalables; f) les conférences préparatoires; g) la présentation des éléments de preuve; h) le délai d'audition et le délai pour rendre les décisions; i) l'adjudication des intérêts. Publication préalable (3) Sous réserve du paragraphe (4), ces règles sont publiées avant leur établissement dans la Gazette du Canada et il doit être donné aux intéressés la possibilité de présenter des observations à leur sujet. Modification (4) La modification des règles proposées n'entraîne pas une nouvelle publication. 1998, ch. 9, art. 27. Instruction des plaintes Instruction 49. (1) La Commission peut, à toute étape postérieure au dépôt de la plainte, demander au président du Tribunal de désigner un membre pour instruire la plainte, si elle est convaincue, compte tenu des circonstances relatives à celle-ci, que l'instruction est justifiée. Formation (2) Sur réception de la demande, le président désigne un membre pour instruire la plainte. Il peut, s'il estime que la difficulté de l'affaire le justifie, désigner trois membres, auxquels dès lors les articles 50 à 58 s'appliquent. Présidence (3) Le président assume lui-même la présidence de la formation collégiale ou, lorsqu'il n'en fait pas partie, la délègue à l'un des membres instructeurs. Exemplaire aux parties (4) Le président met à la disposition des parties un exemplaire des règles de pratique. Avocat ou notaire (5) Dans le cas où la plainte met en cause la compatibilité d'une disposition d'une autre loi fédérale ou de ses règlements d'application avec la présente loi ou ses règlements d'application, le membre instructeur ou celui qui préside l'instruction, lorsqu'elle est collégiale, doit être membre du barreau d'une province ou de la Chambre des notaires du Québec. Argument présenté en cours d'instruction (6) Le fait qu'une partie à l'enquête soulève la question de la compatibilité visée au paragraphe (5) en cours d'instruction n'a pas pour effet de dessaisir le ou les membres désignés pour entendre l'affaire et qui ne seraient pas autrement qualifiés pour l'entendre. L.R. (1985), ch. H-6, art. 49; L.R. (1985), ch. 31 (1er suppl.), art. 66; 1998, ch. 9, art. 27. Fonctions 50. (1) Le membre instructeur, après avis conforme à la Commission, aux parties et, à son appréciation, à tout intéressé, instruit la plainte pour laquelle il a été désigné; il donne à ceux-ci la possibilité pleine et entière de comparaître et de présenter, en personne ou par l'intermédiaire d'un avocat, des éléments de preuve ainsi que leurs observations. Questions de droit et de fait (2) Il tranche les questions de droit et les questions de fait dans les affaires dont il est saisi en vertu de la présente partie. Pouvoirs (3) Pour la tenue de ses audiences, le membre instructeur a le pouvoir : a) d'assigner et de contraindre les témoins à comparaître, à déposer verbalement ou par écrit sous la foi du serment et à produire les pièces qu'il juge indispensables à l'examen complet de la plainte, au même titre qu'une cour supérieure d'archives; b) de faire prêter serment; c) de recevoir, sous réserve des paragraphes (4) et (5), des éléments de preuve ou des renseignements par déclaration verbale ou écrite sous serment ou par tout autre moyen qu'il estime indiqué, indépendamment de leur admissibilité devant un tribunal judiciaire; d) de modifier les délais prévus par les règles de pratique; e) de trancher toute question de procédure ou de preuve. Restriction (4) Il ne peut admettre en preuve les éléments qui, dans le droit de la preuve, sont confidentiels devant les tribunaux judiciaires. Le conciliateur n'est ni compétent ni contraignable (5) Le conciliateur n'est un témoin ni compétent ni contraignable à l'instruction. Frais des témoins (6) Les témoins assignés à comparaître en vertu du présent article peuvent, à l'appréciation du membre instructeur, recevoir les frais et indemnités accordés aux témoins assignés devant la Cour fédérale. L.R. (1985), ch. H-6, art. 50; 1998, ch. 9, art. 27. Obligations de la Commission 51. En comparaissant devant le membre instructeur et en présentant ses éléments de preuve et ses observations, la Commission adopte l'attitude la plus proche, à son avis, de l'intérêt public, compte tenu de la nature de la plainte. L.R. (1985), ch. H-6, art. 51; 1998, ch. 9, art. 27. Instruction en principe publique 52. (1) L'instruction est publique, mais le membre instructeur peut, sur demande en ce sens, prendre toute mesure ou rendre toute ordonnance pour assurer la confidentialité de l'instruction s'il est convaincu que, selon le cas : a) il y a un risque sérieux de divulgation de questions touchant la sécurité publique; b) il y a un risque sérieux d'atteinte au droit à une instruction équitable de sorte que la nécessité d'empêcher la divulgation de renseignements l'emporte sur l'intérêt qu'a la société à ce que l'instruction soit publique; c) il y a un risque sérieux de divulgation de questions personnelles ou autres de sorte que la nécessité d'empêcher leur divulgation dans l'intérêt des personnes concernées ou dans l'intérêt public l'emporte sur l'intérêt qu'a la société à ce que l'instruction soit publique; d) il y a une sérieuse possibilité que la vie, la liberté ou la sécurité d'une personne puisse être mise en danger par la publicité des débats. Confidentialité (2) Le membre instructeur peut, s'il l'estime indiqué, prendre toute mesure ou rendre toute ordonnance qu'il juge nécessaire pour assurer la confidentialité de la demande visée au paragraphe (1). L.R. (1985), ch. H-6, art. 52; 1998, ch. 9, art. 27. Rejet de la plainte 53. (1) À l'issue de l'instruction, le membre instructeur rejette la plainte qu'il juge non fondée. Plainte jugée fondée (2) À l'issue de l'instruction, le membre instructeur qui juge la plainte fondée, peut, sous réserve de l'article 54, ordonner, selon les circonstances, à la personne trouvée coupable d'un acte discriminatoire : a) de mettre fin à l'acte et de prendre, en consultation avec la Commission relativement à leurs objectifs généraux, des mesures de redressement ou des mesures destinées à prévenir des actes semblables, notamment : (i) d'adopter un programme, un plan ou un arrangement visés au paragraphe 16(1), (ii) de présenter une demande d'approbation et de mettre en oeuvre un programme prévus à l'article 17; b) d'accorder à la victime, dès que les circonstances le permettent, les droits, chances ou avantages dont l'acte l'a privée; c) d'indemniser la victime de la totalité, ou de la fraction des pertes de salaire et des dépenses entraînées par l'acte; d) d'indemniser la victime de la totalité, ou de la fraction des frais supplémentaires occasionnés par le recours à d'autres biens, services, installations ou moyens d'hébergement, et des dépenses entraînées par l'acte; e) d'indemniser jusqu'à concurrence de 20 000 $ la victime qui a souffert un préjudice moral. Indemnité spéciale (3) Outre les pouvoirs que lui confère le paragraphe (2), le membre instructeur peut ordonner à l'auteur d'un acte discriminatoire de payer à la victime une indemnité maximale de 20 000 $, s'il en vient à la conclusion que l'acte a été délibéré ou inconsidéré. Intérêts (4) Sous réserve des règles visées à l'article 48.9, le membre instructeur peut accorder des intérêts sur l'indemnité au taux et pour la période qu'il estime justifiés.

FEDERAL COURT

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET: T-1820-02

STYLE OF CAUSE: CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

and

CANADA POST CORPORATION

PLACE OF HEARING: OTTAWA, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING: DECEMBER 11, 2003

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER : von FINCKENSTEIN J.

DATED: JANUARY 21, 2004

APPEARANCES:

Monette Maillet FOR APPLICANT

Zygmunt Machelak FOR RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Canadian Human Rights Commission FOR APPLICANT

Ottawa, ON

Canada Post Corportion FOR RESPONDENT

Vancouver, BC

You are here

Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Canada Post Corp., 2004 FC 81

Citations2004 FC 81

Case tabs

Citations
2004 FC 81