Docket: 16-T-17
Citation:
2016 FC 701
Ottawa, Ontario, June 22, 2016
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice McDonald
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
ALEXANDRE
PAPOUCHINE
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
CANADIAN HUMAN
RIGHTS COMMISSION;
CANADA (ATTORNEY
GENERAL)
|
|
Respondents
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
The Applicant, Alexandre Papouchine, moves for
an order for “approval” or leave to bring
separate applications for judicial review of two Canadian Human Rights
Commission (CHRC) complaint files. The Applicant also seeks an extension of time.
The Applicant is self‑represented.
[2]
The Applicant complained to the CHRC that its “employees and/or officials were catastrophically negligent
in duty to follow procedural fairness and were ignorant to reasonable requests
of Complainant to fix issues of breaches of procedural fairness”. These
complaints against the CHRC were in relation to the CHRC’s treatment of other
complaints made by the Applicant.
[3]
By letter dated September 21, 2015, the
Applicant was advised that his complaint against the CHRC could not be accepted
because the matters raised did not constitute a discriminatory practice under
the Canadian Human Rights Act, RSC, 1985, c H-6, and any link to one of
the prohibited grounds of discrimination was insufficiently demonstrated.
[4]
Following this letter, there was further
correspondence between the Applicant and the CHRC. By letter dated on April 1,
2016, the CHRC informed the Applicant that the processing of his separate
complaint against the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) is unrelated to his attempts
file a complaint against the CHRC. In a separate letter, the Applicant was
invited to resubmit a complaint form in respect of allegations of
discriminations against the CRA.
[5]
The Applicant now seeks “approval”
to commence an application for judicial review of CHRC files #20150808 and
#20150809. While the record is not entirely clear about the nature of these
files, it seems they relate to the Applicant’s complaints against the CHRC. The
Applicant characterizes the April 1, 2016 letter as the date of decision, and
seeks leave to apply for judicial review in relation to these files effective
to that date.
[6]
First, the Applicant is not required to seek
leave to apply for judicial review. The proper procedure is for the Applicant
to bring a notice of application for judicial review under subsection 18.1(1)
of the Federal Courts Act, RSC, 1985, c F-7, within the timelines
specified.
[7]
Second, and notwithstanding this, the April 1,
2016 letter is not a reviewable decision in respect of his complaints against
the CHRC. In Carvajal v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)
(1994), 82 FTR 241, this Court noted that a mere informational letter, much
like the April 1, 2016 letter here, is not subject to judicial review. Rather,
the Applicant’s complaints against the CHRC were addressed in the decision
letter dated September 21, 2015. The Applicant is out of time in respect of
this decision.
[8]
Third, even if this motion is characterized as a
request for an extension of time to apply for judicial review, the Applicant
has not established that there is a justifiable reason to grant an extension of
time: Neis (c.o.b. as Brookside Transport) v Baksa , 2002 FCA 230 at
para 2.
[9]
While the Applicant appears to be frustrated
with the CHRC, he must nonetheless await a decision from the CHRC as to whether
it will agree to his request to reopen files 20150808 and 20150809. The April
1, 2016 letters cannot be considered reviewable decisions in respect of files
20150808 and 20150809.
[10]
I therefore dismiss the Applicant’s motion without
costs.
Email this Content