Date: 20010803
Docket: T-1318-01
Ottawa, Ontario, the 3rd day of August, 2001
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice François Lemieux
BETWEEN:
CONFÉDÉRATION DES SYNDICATS NATIONAUX
Applicant
AND
SYNDICAT DES EMPLOYÉS DE TERMINUS
DE VOYAGEUR COLONIAL LIMITÉE (CSN)
and
LISE GOYETTE
Respondents
ORDER
The motion by the Confédération des Syndicats nationaux for an order to stay the holding of hearings before the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the "tribunal") scheduled for August 16 and 17, 2001 until final judgment on the application for a writ of prohibition it has filed is dismissed with costs.
"François Lemieux"
J.
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L., Trad. a.
Date: 20010803
Docket: T-1318-01
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 854
BETWEEN:
CONFÉDÉRATION DES SYNDICATS NATIONAUX
Applicant
AND
SYNDICAT DES EMPLOYÉS DE TERMINUS
DE VOYAGEUR COLONIAL LIMITÉE (CSN)
and
LISE GOYETTE
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER
LEMIEUX J.
[1] This is a motion by the Confédération des Syndicats nationaux (CSN) for an order to stay the holding of the hearings before the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the "tribunal") scheduled for August 16 and 17, 2001 until final judgment on the application for a writ of prohibition it has filed.
[2] On October 14, 1997, the tribunal allowed the complaint of the respondent Lise Goyette and held that in accepting and executing the collective labour agreement signed on September 17, 1989, the Syndicat des employés de Terminus Voyageur Colonial Limitée (CSN) (the "Union") had committed an act of systemic discrimination against a group of employees, the telephone operators (mainly women), limiting their opportunities for employment or promotion.
[3] As relief, the tribunal thought the following compensatory measures were appropriate in this instance, and ordered the Union to pay Ms. Goyette the following amounts within thirty (30) days of its decision:
(1) compensation of $5,000 for the non-economic loss she had suffered as a result of the discriminatory practice;
(2) reimbursement of the wages and benefits she had lost for the period from December 7, 1989 to June 6, 1996;
(3) $3,000 covering the expenses related to the filing of the complaint and that were incurred as a result of the discriminatory practice, as she had represented herself; and
(4) simple interest on the amounts awarded under paragraphs (2) and (3).
[4] The tribunal added that if there was any problem in doing the calculations and the parties were unable to agree on the terms and conditions for determining the amounts, the tribunal could meet at the request of either party to hear the evidence to that effect and resolve the dispute.
[5] The Union appealed the tribunal decision to this Court and the application for judicial review was dismissed on November 5, 1999 by Mr. Justice Pinard. The Union appealed that decision to the Federal Court of Appeal. The appeal is pending.
[6] On May 26, 2000, the Union made an assignment of its property under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
[7] On July 17, 2001, the tribunal gave notice of a resumption of hearing and in a cover letter sent to counsel, the tribunal's registry wrote:
[Translation] In regard to the aforesaid matter, this is to notify you that, as stated in my letter of last June 29, the tribunal will hear the parties concerning the participation of the CSN in this matter on August 16 and 17, 2001, in Montréal.
[8] On July 19, 2001, the CSN filed an application for judicial review of the tribunal's decision to schedule two (2) days of hearings on the participation of the CSN in the matter.
[9] In a letter of June 29, 2001, the tribunal informed the parties' counsel, under the heading "Participation of the CSN", that
[Translation] Moreover, the tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the representations of the parties concerning the participation of the CSN in this case....
ANALYSIS
[10] Counsel for the CSN argues that the tribunal (1) has exhausted its jurisdiction and is functus officio, and (2) that from the standpoint of procedural fairness, the CSN was not targeted by Ms. Goyette's complaint, was not a party before the tribunal and is not affected by its judgment.
[11] This motion must be dismissed, as counsel for the CSN has failed to persuade me that the CSN's application for judicial review raises a serious question at this stage of the proceedings. In my opinion, the application for judicial review is premature.
[12] The question that the tribunal must resolve is whether in fact or in law the CSN is liable to Ms. Goyette for the relief ordered against one of its affiliates, now bankrupt.
[13] The tribunal has not yet ruled on this question. The purpose of the scheduled hearing is precisely to argue before the tribunal the questions of fact and of law that will enable it to rule on this matter.
[14] It may be that the CSN is right in arguing that the tribunal is functus officio or that it is in no way liable for the Union's debts under the principle of procedural fairness or, more fundamentally, because it is a separate legal entity. These submissions may be raised by the CSN before the tribunal.
[15] However, the tribunal cannot draw the conclusions the CSN wants unless it finds the necessary facts and applies them to the relevant legal principles.
[16] This opportunity is the very foundation of the principle of prematurity and the principle that the courts will hesitate to intervene at preliminary stages in a proceeding: See Zündel v. Canada (Human Rights Commission), [2000] 4 F.C. 255 (C.A.) at page 260, and Zündel v. Canada (Attorney General), [1999] 4 F.C. 289 (T.D.).
[17] The application of the Confédération des Syndicats nationaux is dismissed with costs.
"François Lemieux"
J.
Ottawa, Ontario
August 3, 2001
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L., Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET NO: T-1318-01
STYLE: Confédération des syndicats nationaux v.
Syndicat des employés de Terminus de Voyageur
Colonial Limitée and Lise Goyette
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: July 30, 2001
REASONS FOR ORDER OF LEMIEUX J.
DATED: August 3, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Maurice Cantin & FOR THE APPLICANT
Jean-François Cliche
Marco Romani FOR THE RESPONDENT -
LISE GOYETTE
Raymond Piché FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Martel, Canin FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Marco Romani FOR THE RESPONDENT -
Montréal, Quebec LISE GOYETTE
Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Department of Justice - Montréal, Quebec OF CANADA
Email this Content