Date: 20030130
Docket: A-176-02
Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 47
CORAM: Décary J.A.
Noël J.A.
Sharlow J.A.
BETWEEN:
JOHN E. CONNOLLY
Appellant
and
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Respondent
Heard at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on January 28th, 2003.
Judgment delivered at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on January 30th, 2003.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DÉCARY J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: NOËL J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
Date: 200301230
Docket: A-176-02
Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 47
CORAM: Décary J.A.
Noël J.A.
Sharlow J.A.
BETWEEN:
JOHN E. CONNOLLY
Appellant
and
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DÉCARY J.A.
[1] This is an appeal by Mr. John Connolly (the appellant) of a decision of Mr. Justice MacKay whereby the appellant's application for judicial review of a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the Commission) was dismissed.
[2] The appellant filed a complaint with the Commission in which he alleged the following:
"Canada Post Corporation has discriminated against me during the course of my employment by refusing to accommodate me because of my disability and by harassing me in contravention of sections 7 and 14 of the Canadian Human Rights Act."
[3] The Commission designated an investigator, pursuant to section 43 of the Act. The investigator issued an Investigation Report, with the recommendation that the complaint be dismissed as unfounded. The report was made available to both parties and both parties made further submissions to the Commission about the report. These submissions were not included in the Appeal Book, but Mr. Connolly informed us at the hearing that he had raised in them the same points he had raised before the Application Judge and which he raised before us.
[4] The appellant submits, essentially, that the Commission had in its possession sufficient information to request the Chairperson of the Tribunal to institute an inquiry. He is of the view that the evidence he brought forward was so compelling that the dismissal of his complaint at that early stage cannot but have resulted from a less than thorough investigation.
[5] Mr. Justice MacKay carefully reviewed the evidence and each of the numerous grounds of attack raised by the appellant. He set out his role as follows, in paragraph 22 of his reasons:
[22] That decision is not to be set aside by this Court because Mr. Connolly believes it was wrong or even because the Court considering the same evidence might have weighed it differently and reached a different conclusion. It can only be set aside if it is established that the decision of the Commission violated a principle of fairness owed to Mr. Connolly or that the decision was not based on evidence before the Commission, or that the Commission otherwise erred in law.
[6] He eventually concluded:
[25] Strongly as he may feel about this perception, I am not persuaded that the investigator's report, was in error in law, or that it demonstrated a breach of procedural fairness or that facts it found were not supportable on the evidence before the Commission. Where two parties differ, as Mr. Connolly was aware they did in this case, for Canada Post refuted his allegation from the beginning, the decision maker whose task it is to determine whether a complaint should be referred to a tribunal, cannot satisfy both parties. Here the CHRC's decision was obviously based on evidence provided to the Commission's investigator and on the written submissions of the parties in relation to the investigator's report and recommendation. There is no evidence on the face of the record before me, despite Mr. Connolly's beliefs and perceptions, that the Commission's decision overlooked significant evidence, or that it took into account any irrelevant matters.
[26] In the result, it is not surprising that this Court finds no basis to set aside the decision of the Commission.
[7] I can find no fault in the learned Judge's reasons. Our Court has, on more than one occasion, stressed the fact that the Act grants the Commission a remarkable degree of latitude when it is performing its screening function on receipt of an investigation report. I have not been persuaded, despite Mr. Connolly's valiant efforts, that this is a case which warrants the intervention of the Court.
[8] The appeal should be dismissed with costs.
Robert Décary
J.A.
I agree
"Marc Noël"
I agree
"K. Sharlow"
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-176-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: JOHN E. CONNOLLY v. CANADA POST
CORPORATION
PLACE OF HEARING: HALIFAX
DATE OF HEARING: JANUARY 28, 2003
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT : DÉCARY J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: NOËL J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
DATED: JANUARY 30, 2003
APPEARANCES:
JOHN CONNOLLY APPELLANT ON HIS OWN
BEHALF
DAVID MOMBOURQUETTE FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
COX HANSON O'REILLY MATHESON FOR THE RESPONDENT
HALIFAX
Email this Content