Docket: A-308-14
Citation:
2015 FCA 92
|
CORAM:
|
RYER J.A.
NEAR J.A.
RENNIE J.A.
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
NAVIN JOSHI
|
|
Appellant
|
|
and
|
|
CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on April 14, 2015)
NEAR J.A.
[1]
In a decision dated October 31, 2012, the
Canadian Human Rights Commission (Commission) dismissed a complaint made by Mr.
Joshi (the appellant) against his former employer, the Canadian Imperial Bank
of Commerce (the respondent).
[2]
After investigating the complaint, the
Commission determined that having regard to all of the circumstances, an
inquiry into the complaint by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal was not
warranted. It therefore dismissed the complaint under subparagraph 44(3)(b)(i)
of the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6.
[3]
On June 6, 2014, Justice Kane of the Federal
Court (the Judge) dismissed Mr. Joshi’s application for judicial review of the
Commission’s decision (2014 FC 552). In careful and thorough reasons, the Judge
concluded that the Commission had treated Mr. Joshi fairly, had investigated
his complaint thoroughly, and had rendered a reasonable decision in dismissing
his complaint (Federal Court Decision, at para. 116).
[4]
Mr. Joshi now appeals to this Court from the
decision of the Federal Court. For the reasons that follow, we would dismiss
the appeal.
[5]
The threshold question for this Court is to
determine whether the Judge correctly chose and properly applied the standards
of review to the Commission’s decision (Agraira v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 36 at para. 47, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 559).
[6]
The Judge correctly chose the applicable
standards of review (Federal Court Decision, at para. 52). Issues of
procedural fairness, including whether the Commission displayed bias and
whether its investigation was sufficiently thorough, are reviewable on the
standard of correctness (Mission Institution v. Khela, 2014 SCC 24 at
para.79, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 502). Otherwise, the Court’s task is to determine
whether the Commission’s decision, viewed as a whole, was reasonable (Keith
v. Correctional Service of Canada, 2012 FCA 117 at para. 47, 431 N.R. 121).
[7]
The Commission adopted the investigator’s
conclusion that the evidence did not support that the respondent had done any
of the following on the basis of the appellant’s disability or perceived
disability (undiagnosed back pain):
- Failed to
provide the appellant with a job opportunity, promotion, or acting
assignment;
- Treated the
appellant in an adverse differential manner; or
- Terminated the
appellant’s employment.
[8]
Put another way, the investigator had not found sufficient
evidence to support the notion that the respondent’s conduct about which the
appellant had complained was motivated or caused by the appellant’s disability
or perceived disability. This conclusion was supported by a thorough and cogent
report, described in detail by the Judge.
[9]
The appellant advances before this Court largely
the same arguments as those which he made before the Federal Court. Having
reviewed the record, it is our view that the Commission’s decision should
stand. The appellant has not shown that the Commission breached its duty of
procedural fairness, or that its decision to dismiss his complaint fell outside
the scope of reasonable outcomes, defensible on the facts and the law (Dunsmuir
v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 at para. 47, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190).
[10]
In addition to his submissions on the decision
of the Commission, the appellant has argued that the Judge demonstrated bias in
favour of the Commission and the respondent. This allegation is completely
devoid of merit. As explained by the Judge in addressing the allegations of
bias the appellant made against the Commission, bias is a term with a precise
legal definition. Allegations of bias are of a very serious nature and should
not be made without proof (Federal Court Decision, at para. 112). Such
allegations are particularly egregious when made against judges, as they attack
one of the pillars of the judicial system, namely the principle that judges are
impartial as between the parties who appear before them (Abi-Mansour v.
Canada (Aboriginal Affairs), 2014 FCA 272 at para. 12, [2014] F.C.J. No.
1145 (QL)). The appellant has not provided any evidence to support his bald
allegation of bias.
[11]
The appeal will be dismissed, with costs, set in
the amount of $2,500.00.
"D.G.Near"
Email this Content