Docket: A-162-14
Citation:
2015 FCA 7
|
CORAM:
|
DAWSON J.A.
STRATAS J.A.
BOIVIN J.A.
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
|
MICHAEL PANULA
|
|
|
Appellant
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT
STRATAS J.A.
[1]
The appellant, Mr. Panula, appeals from the
judgment of the Federal Court dated February 24, 2014 (per Justice
McVeigh) in file T-62-12. The Federal Court dismissed the appellant’s
application for judicial review from a decision of the Canadian Human Rights
Commission. On November 29, 2012, the Commission, exercising its jurisdiction under
paragraphs 41(1)(d) and (e) of the Canadian Human Rights Act,
R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6, decided not to deal with the appellant’s complaint that
his former employer, the Canada Revenue Agency (and its predecessors), discriminated
against him.
[2]
In a case such as this – an appeal from a
dismissal of an application for judicial review in the Federal Court – this
Court must assess whether the Federal Court chose the appropriate standard of
review and then applied it properly to the administrative decision before it.
[3]
In my view, the Federal Court properly applied
the standard of review of reasonableness, i.e., whether the decision
falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible on
the facts and the law: Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1
S.C.R. 190 at paragraph 47; Halifax (Regional Municipality) v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), 2012 SCC 10, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 364 at paragraph
44.
[4]
I agree with the Federal Court’s conclusions
that the Commission’s decision reached a reasonable outcome, for the reasons it
gave at paragraphs 21-38. I do not agree with the appellant’s submission that
the Federal Court did not examine the Commission’s decision in a sufficiently
rigorous manner.
[5]
I also agree with the Federal Court that the Commission’s
thirteen month delay does not amount to a violation of the duty of fairness in
these circumstances, for the reasons its gave at paragraphs 39-46.
[6]
In this Court, the appellant alleges that the
Federal Court erred in not permitting him to refer to evidence that was not in
the record. The Federal Court did not so err. The Federal Court relied upon the
well-established principle that, in an application for judicial review,
normally only materials that were before the administrative decision-maker, here
the Commission, can be placed into the record. It also relied upon a
pre-hearing order dated March 22, 2013 (unappealed) in which the Federal Court
ruled against the appellant’s attempt to have additional materials placed in
the record. In this Court, the appellant moved again for the inclusive of
additional materials and that motion was dismissed.
[7]
The appellant also submits that the hearing time
in the Federal Court was improperly and unfairly restricted. The order setting
the matter down for hearing suggested that the hearing would take one to two
days. At the outset of the hearing, the judge, having read all of the materials
filed, opined that the hearing could be completed in one-half day. In fact, the
hearing lasted three hours and ten minutes.
[8]
There is nothing before this Court to suggest
that the appellant was unable to present his case adequately and fully. Indeed,
absent special circumstances, none of which are present here, a hearing of this
length allows applicants, even unrepresented ones, sufficient time in a matter
such as this to present their cases.
[9]
For the foregoing reasons, I would dismiss the
appeal with costs in the fixed amount of $250.00, all inclusive.
“David Stratas”
“I agree
Eleanor
R. Dawson J.A.”
“I agree
Richard Boivin J.A.”
Email this Content