Date: 20010502
Docket: A-472-00
Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 139
CORAM: STRAYER J.A.
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
B E T W E E N:
BELL CANADA
Appellant
(Applicant)
-- and --
CANADIAN TELEPHONE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
COMMUNICATIONS, ENERGY AND PAPERWORKERS UNION OF CANADA
FEMMES ACTION
-- and --
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Respondents
(Respondents)
Heard at Ottawa, Ontario on Wednesday, May 2, 2001
JUDGMENT delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario on Wednesday, May 2, 2001
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: STRAYER J.A.
Date: 20010502
Docket: A-472-00
Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 139
C O R A M: STRAYER J.A.
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
B E T W E E N:
BELL CANADA
Appellant
(Applicant)
-- and --
CANADIAN TELEPHONE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
COMMUNICATIONS, ENERGY AND PAPERWORKERS UNION OF CANADA
FEMMES ACTION
-- and --
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Respondents
(Respondents)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario
on Wednesday, May 2, 2001)
STRAYER J.A.
[1] This is an appeal from a decision of Pelletier J. of June 20, 2000 in which he dismissed an application by the appellant, Bell Canada ("Bell") for judicial review of an interlocutory decision of a panel of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. The Tribunal had commenced hearings in January, 1999, of various complaints made by the respondent union and Femmes Action to the effect that Bell has denied certain workers equal pay for work of equal value.
[2] In August, 1999, Bell took a motion before the panel for an order excluding from evidence a large number of documents whose disclosure, it alleged, would violate certain undertakings of confidentiality between the parties. The panel dismissed this motion and Bell sought judicial review of that decision in the Trial Division.
[3] Pelletier J. found that, on the evidence, there was no such undertaking of confidentiality as Bell alleged. Further, he held that the application for judicial review of an interlocutory evidentiary ruling was premature. He relied in particular on the recent decision of this Court in Zundel v. Canada [2000] F.C.J. 678.
[4] We would first note that the disputed documents were not before us.
[5] While we in no way wish to suggest that we disagree with the learned application judge on the question of whether there would be any breach of confidentiality in the production of these documents, we will dispose of the appeal on the basis that the application for judicial review was premature. Rulings made by a Tribunal panel on the admissibility or compellability of evidence should not be the subject of such applications until the panel's proceedings are completed. This principle, as the cases have indicated, is based on the fact that the parties cannot know until the end of the proceeding whether a review of a particular interlocutory decision will be necessary; and on the fact that the inconvenience of the delay involved far outweighs any value in an early review.
[6] The appeal will therefore be dismissed. At the request of each of the respondents we will award costs at the high end of Column V.
(s) "B.L. Strayer"
J.A.
Email this Content