Bell Canada v. Canadian Telephone Employees Association, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 884, 2003 SCC 36, 2003 SCC 36 (2003)

Extract

---

Bell Canada v. Canadian Telephone Employees Association, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 884, 2003 SCC 36, 2003 SCC 36 (2003)

Bell Canada v. Canadian Telephone Employees Association,

[2003] 1 S.C.R. 884, 2003 SCC 36

Bell Canada Appellant v.

Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada,

Femmes Action and Canadian Human Rights Commission Respondents and

Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General of Ontario,

Canadian Labour Congress, Public Service Alliance of Canada and

Canada Post Corporation Interveners

Indexed as: Bell Canada v. Canadian Telephone Employees Association

Neutral citation: 2003 SCC 36.

File No.: 28743.

2003: January 23; 2003: June 26.

Present: McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

on appeal from the federal court of appeal

Administrative law - Procedural fairness - Institutional independence - Impartiality - Canadian Human Rights Tribunal - Canadian Human Rights Commission - Canadian Human Rights Act authorizing Commission to issue guidelines binding on Tribunal concerning "a class of cases" - Act also authorizing Tribunal Chairperson to extend terms of Tribunal members in ongoing inquiries - Whether Commission's guideline-making power compromises Tribunal's independence and impartiality - Whether Chairperson's power to extend appointments compromises Tribunal's independence and impartiality - Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6, ss. 11, 27(2), 48.2(2) - Canadian Bill of Rights, S.C. 1960, c. 44, s. 2(e).

Bell brought a motion before a panel of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which had been convened to hear complaints filed against Bell by female employees. Bell alleged that the Tribunal's independence and impartiality were compromised by two powers: first, the power of the Canadian Human Rights Commission to issue guidelines that are binding on the Tribunal concerning "a class of cases", and second, the power of the Tribunal Chairperson to extend Tribunal members' terms in ongoing inquiries.

The Tribunal rejected Bell's position and directed that the hearings should proceed. The Federal Court, Trial Division, allowed Bell's application for judicial review, holding that even the narrowed guideline power of the Commission unduly fettered the Tribunal, and that the Chairperson's discretionary power to extend appointments did not leave Tribunal members with a sufficient guarantee of tenure. The Federal Court of Appeal reversed that judgment.

Held: The appeal should be dismissed.

Neither of the two powers challenged by Bell compromises the procedural fairness of the Tribunal. Nor does either power contravene any applicable quasi-constitutional or constitutional principle.

The Tribunal should be held to a high standard of independence, both a...

See the full content of this document

---