Docket: A-444-15
Citation:
2016 FCA 117
|
CORAM:
|
DAWSON J.A.
NEAR J.A.
BOIVIN J.A.
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
RONALD PHIPPS
|
|
Appellant
|
|
and
|
|
CANADA POST
CORPORATION
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT
NEAR J.A.
I.
Introduction
[1]
This is an appeal from a decision of Justice
Gleeson of the Federal Court dated September 15, 2015 and reported as 2015 FC
1080 in which he dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of
the Canada Human Rights Commission (the Commission) to dismiss the appellant’s
complaint against Canada Post Corporation (Canada Post).
II.
Background
[2]
The appellant, Ronald Phipps, identifies as an
African Canadian male. He was hired as a letter carrier for Canada Post in
December 2002, and was a member of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (the CUPW)
while he was employed at Canada Post. On November 8, 2013, the appellant’s
employment with Canada Post ended. On or about November 28, 2013, he filed a
complaint with the Commission alleging that he was treated in an adverse and
differential manner by his supervisors and was subjected to workplace
harassment. Canada Post provided a written response to the appellant’s
complaint. On May 21, 2014, a Commission investigator advised the appellant
that she would be investigating his complaint. The appellant provided the
Commission investigator with several written submissions throughout the
investigation.
III.
Decision Under Review
[3]
On November 6, 2014, the Commission investigator
issued an Investigation Report recommending the dismissal of the appellant’s
complaints pursuant to subparagraph 44(3)(b)(i) of the Canadian Human
Rights Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6 (the Act). The Investigation Report
examined the three areas in which the appellant alleged that he had been
discrimination against on a prohibited ground. The first was the allegation
that the appellant received adverse or differential treatment due to his race,
colour, national or ethnic origin and/or sex. The Investigation Report
addressed five instances of such treatment alleged by the appellant, and
concluded that the evidence did not support the appellant’s claims in each
instance. The second allegation was that the appellant was tricked into resigning.
The Investigation Report concluded that the evidence demonstrated that the
appellant had voluntarily resigned to access the commuted value of his pension.
The third alleged ground was that Canada Post failed to provide a
harassment-free work environment. The Investigation Report noted that it
appeared the appellant had not reported the incident of racial slurs to which
he claimed he had been subjected, to either management or the CUPW, and that in
the alternative, the evidence did not support that the incident occurred.
[4]
The appellant provided submissions on the
Investigation Report on November 11, 2014. On January 15, 2015, the Commission
issued a decision letter dismissing the appellant’s complaint pursuant to
subparagraph 44(3)(b)(i) of the Act and closing the file. Subparagraph
44(3)(b)(i) states that on receipt of an Investigation Report, the
Commission “shall dismiss the complaint to which the
report relates if it is satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances
of the complaint, an inquiry into the complaint is not warranted”.
[5]
The Commission’s decision letter advised the
appellant that prior to rendering the decision, the Commission reviewed both
the Investigation Report and the appellant’s response thereto. The reasons
given for dismissal in the letter were that: (1) the evidence did not support
that the appellant was treated in an adverse differential manner because of his
national or ethnic origin, colour or sex; (2) the evidence did not show that
the appellant’s employment was terminated; and (3) the evidence did not show
that the appellant was subjected to harassment in the workplace because of his
national or ethnic origin, colour or sex.
[6]
Pursuant to Sketchley v. Canada (Attorney
General), 2005 FCA 404 at para. 37, 344 N.R. 257, because the Commission’s
decision letter does not provide detailed reasons, the Investigation Report
constitutes the reasons for the Commission’s decision. The judge dismissed the
appellant’s application for judicial review and upheld the decision of the
Commission.
IV.
Analysis
[7]
The appellant is self-represented and in large
measure makes the same arguments before this Court that he made both before the
Commission and the Federal Court. Namely, he submits that he was subjected to
discriminatory treatment based on race, colour, national or ethnic origin
and/or sex with respect to the issue of payment for overtime work, the use of
his bicycle for work purposes, and an incident of a racial slur allegedly
directed at him. Based upon the evidence, the appellant essentially continues
to disagree with the findings of fact with respect to these and other issues
contained in the Investigation Report. He continues to disagree with the
conclusion reached by the Commission based upon these findings of fact and also
disagrees with the Federal Court’s decision upholding these conclusions. The
appellant invites this Court to re-weigh the evidence and come to a different
conclusion from that of the Commission which was upheld by the Federal Court.
This is not the role of this Court on appeal. Rather, the appellant must
convince the Court that the Commission committed a reviewable error.
[8]
Despite the ardent submissions by the appellant
and notwithstanding his genuine belief as to his position on the various
complaints he has put forward, I am of the view that the appellant has not
identified any reviewable error in the Commission’s decision and Investigation
Report, nor in the Federal Court’s judicial review of that decision. Further, I
do not see any reviewable error in the procedural issues, i.e., the limit on
the length of the appellant’s complaint and the decision not to interview all
of the appellant’s suggested witnesses.
V.
Conclusion
[9]
I would therefore dismiss the appeal with costs
in this Court payable to the respondent in the amount of $300 inclusive of tax
and disbursements.
"David G. Near"
“I agree.
Eleanor R. Dawson J.A.”
“I agree.
Richard Boivin J.A.”
Email this Content