Chopra v. Canada (Procureur général), 2007 CAF 268 (2007)

Extract

---

Chopra v. Canada (Procureur général), 2007 CAF 268 (2007)

Date: 20070821

Docket: A-52-06

Citation: 2007 FCA 268

CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.

PELLETIER J.A.

MALONE J.A.

BETWEEN:

DR. SHIV CHOPRA

Appellant

and

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

AND THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Respondent s

Heard at Ottawa, Ontario , on March 6, 2007.

Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario , on August 21 , 2007.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: PELLETIER J.A.

CONCURRED IN BY: DESJARDINS J.A.

MALONE J.A.

Date: 20070821

Docket: A-52-06

Citation: 2007 FCA 268

CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.

PELLETIER J.A.

MALONE J.A.

BETWEEN:

DR. SHIV CHOPRA

Appellant

and

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

AND THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

PELLETIER J.A.

Introduction

[1] In the fall of 1992, the appellant, Dr. Shiv Chopra, filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the Commission), alleging that his employer, the Department of National Health and Welfare (the Employer), had discriminated against him in the staffing of a management position. A tribunal appointed under the Canadian Human Rights Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. H-5 (the Act) eventually agreed with him and awarded him compensation for his resulting losses. Dr. Chopra sought judicial review of that decision, claiming that the Tribunal did not apply the correct legal principles in determining the compensation to which he was entitled. Phelan J. dismissed his application for judicial review, thus giving rise to this appeal.

The Facts

[2] In the fall of 1990, the position of Director of Bureau of Human Prescription Drugs, Department of National Health and Welfare, became vacant. Dr. Chopra, a long term employee, was interested in applying for the position and suggested to the Employer that he be appointed to the position on an acting basis (the Acting position). Since two other candidates were also interested in the position, Dr. Chopra suggested that they all be rotated through the position. This suggestion was rejected and management's preferred candidate was appointed to the position on an acting basis. When it came time to fill the position on a full-time permanent basis (the Indeterminate position), Dr. Chopra applied but was screened out by the selection committee because he lacked recent management experience. The incumbent in the Acting position was successful in the competition for the Indeterminate position.

[3] Dr. Chopra complained to the Commission, which sent ...

See the full content of this document

---