Docket:
A-44-13
Citation: 2013
FCA 273
CORAM:
PELLETIER J.A.
STRATAS J.A.
NEAR J.A.
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
RAYMOND ALLAN MENARD
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
ROYAL BANK OF CANADA
|
|
Respondent
|
Heard at Edmonton, Alberta, on November 25, 2013.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Edmonton, Alberta, on November
25, 2013.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: STRATAS
J.A.
Docket:
A-44-13
Citation:
2013 FCA 273
CORAM:
PELLETIER
J.A.
STRATAS
J.A.
NEAR
J.A.
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
RAYMOND ALLAN MENARD
|
|
Appellant
|
|
And
|
|
ROYAL BANK OF CANADA
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the
Bench at Edmonton, Alberta, on November 25, 2013).
STRATAS J.A.
[1]
Mr. Menard appeals from the judgment dated
January 4, 2013 of the Federal Court (per Justice O’Reilly): 2013 FC 2.
[2]
In the Federal Court, Mr. Menard sought to quash
the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s decision to dismiss his complaint
against the respondent Bank. Mr. Menard complained that the Bank had
discriminated against him because of his disability.
[3]
Before the Federal Court, Mr. Menard submitted
that the Commission acted unfairly by failing to conduct a proper and thorough
investigation and by failing to consider his response to the investigator’s
report. He also submitted that the Commission’s decision was unreasonable. The
Federal Court rejected these submissions.
[4]
On his appeal to this Court, Mr. Menard advances
similar submissions.
[5]
We agree substantially with the reasons of the
Federal Court and shall dismiss the appeal.
[6]
We are not persuaded that, in the circumstances
of this case, the Commission’s failure to refer to Mr. Menard’s submissions
concerning the investigator’s report showed that it did not consider those
submissions. Further, a review of the investigator’s report in the context of
this record, including Mr. Menard’s submissions, persuades us that the
investigation was thorough enough, examining the material issues surrounding
the complaint.
[7]
Before us, Mr. Menard stressed the Commission’s
failure in its decision to take into account the credibility issues and
contradictions in the Bank’s evidence. But also before the Commission were
certain frailties in Mr. Menard’s evidence such as the inconsistency between
his version of events and those related to the Bank’s investigator.
[8]
On the issue of the reasonableness of the
Commission’s decision, we also substantially agree with the Federal Court’s
reasons. It was open to the Commission on this record to find that the complaint
of discrimination could not be sustained. The Commission found no basis to the
complaint that the Bank acted in a discriminatory manner in terminating Mr.
Menard’s employment or in handling his questions concerning disability benefits.
For example, the investigator rejected Mr. Menard’s claim that he was
discriminated against because of his disability. These are factual findings
supported by the record before the Commission.
[9]
Contrary to Mr. Menard’s submissions, the
Commission did not exceed its mandate. In our view, the Commission kept within
its task of assessing whether an inquiry is warranted having regard to all the
facts, rather than determining whether the complaint has merit: Dupuis v.
Canada, 2010 FC 511. In particular, the Commission’s function in these
circumstances is that of a screening body. In order to discharge that function,
it must make certain factual and credibility assessments. Were it otherwise,
every case involving a factual or credibility issue would have to be referred
to a tribunal. In our view, the Commission’s determination that Mr. Menard’s
claim did not warrant further investigation was within its proper mandate and
was reasonable on the record before it.
[10]
Finally, we note that the decisions of the Federal
Court and the Commission – to the effect that employer actions motivated by an
employee’s wrongful conduct alone cannot constitute discrimination – are
consistent with other leading appellate authorities such as British Columbia
(Public Service Agency) v. B.C.G.E.U., 2008 BCCA 357 and Wright v.
College and Association of Registered Nurses of Alberta, 2012 ABCA 267.
[11]
For the foregoing reasons, we shall dismiss the
appeal with costs.
"David Stratas"
Email this Content