Date: 20020522
Docket: T-24-02
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 584
Montréal, Quebec, May 22, 2002
Before: Richard Morneau, prothonotary
BETWEEN:
MANON MALO
and
GROUPE TVA INC.
Plaintiffs
and
NADIA CAZA
Defendant
Motion to intervene by Canadian Human Rights Commission.
[Rules 109 and 369 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998]
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] On January 2, 2002 the plaintiffs filed an application for judicial review of a decision by the Canadian Human Rights Commission ("the Commission") of December 20, 2000 in which the Commission asked the chairperson of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to appoint a member to hear the complaints of Nadia Caza, first against Télé-Métropole inc. and second against Manon Malo.
[2] It appears from a complete review of the grounds alleged in support of the application for judicial review that the question before this Court is one that turns exclusively on infringement of procedural fairness by the Commission and the plaintiffs' reasonable apprehension of bias. Accordingly, this review application raises no question of the Commission's jurisdiction.
[3] In its motion to intervene the Commission maintained that the plaintiffs' application raised the question of the Commission's jurisdiction as to the procedure to be followed in processing complaints laid before it.
[4] The Commission further argued that the instant application for judicial review raised the question of the Commission's discretion to rule on a complaint filed over a year after the alleged discriminatory events.
[5] The question of the procedure to be followed by the Commission in processing complaints laid before it is not a question of jurisdiction.
[6] Additionally, the application for judicial review is based on the fact that the Commission did not conduct a neutral and correct inquiry, which is a question of procedural fairness.
[7] In considering the question of the procedure to be followed in processing complaints it is likely that the Commission will have to defend itself against allegations of infringement of procedural fairness and of bias, which it cannot do according to the applicable case law.
[8] Further, the question of the Commission's discretion to hear a complaint filed over a year after the alleged events is not a question of the Commission's jurisdiction. On the contrary, it offers some latitude provided by Parliament to an administrative agency which is squarely within its field of jurisdiction.
[9] As there are no questions of jurisdiction, the Commission must be authorized to intervene in the case at bar but only in an "explanatory role with reference to the record before the [Commission]", in the words used by Estey J. in [1979] 1 S.C.R. 684">Northwestern Utilities Ltd. et al. v. Edmonton, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 684, at 709, but without being able to address the dispute between the parties before it on the merits.
[10] Consequently, the Court must make the following order.
ORDER
THE COURT:
[1] AUTHORIZES the Commission to intervene in the case at bar only in an "explanatory role with reference to the record before the [Commission]" in the words used by Estey J. in [1979] 1 S.C.R. 684">Northwestern Utilities Ltd. et al. v. Edmonton, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 684, at 709, but without being able to hear the dispute between the parties before it on the merits;
[2] AUTHORIZES the Commission to serve and file a memorandum of fact and law within 10 days of this order relating to point [1];
[3] AUTHORIZES the Commission to submit oral arguments at the hearing with regard to the content of its memorandum mentioned in [2];
[4] any party other than the Commission may serve and file a memorandum of fact and law in response to the Commission's memorandum within 10 days of service of that memorandum;
[5] in future, the style of cause shall include the Canadian Human Rights Commission as intervener.
|
|
Richard Morneau
prothonotary
|
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.
|
|
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 20020522
Docket: T-24-02
Between:
MANON MALO
and
GROUPE TVA INC.
Plaintiffs
and
NADIA CAZA
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER
|
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
FILE: T-24-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: MANON MALO and GROUPE TVA INC.
Plaintiffs
and
NADIA CAZA
Defendant
WRITTEN MOTION CONSIDERED IN MONTRÉAL WITHOUT APPEARANCE BY PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
DATED: May 22, 2002
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
Nicola Di Iorio for the plaintiffs
Philippe Dufresne for the Canadian Human Rights Commission
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Heenan, Blaikie, Aubut for the plaintiffs
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg for the Attorney General of Canada
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Philippe Dufresne for the Canadian Human Rights Commission
Ottawa, Ontario
Email this Content