Bell Canada v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada et al., (1997) 127 F.T.R. 44 (TD)

• Judge: Richard, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 22, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1997), 127 F.T.R. 44 (TD)

Bell Can. v. CEPU (1997), 127 F.T.R. 44 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1997] F.T.R. TBEd. MR.018

Bell Canada (applicant) v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Canadian Telephone Employees Association and Femmes Action (respondents)

(T-1414-96; T-1985-96; T-2722-96)

Indexed As: Bell Canada v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Richard, J.

February 21, 1997.

Summary:

The Canadian Human Rights Commission requested the President to name a tribunal to inquire into complaints of discrimination against Bell Canada. Bell applied for judicial review of the decision and requested that the President refrain from naming a tribunal pending the resolution of its judicial review application. The President named a tribunal to hear the complaints. Bell applied for judicial review of the President's decision. The Tribunal subsequently refused Bell's request to adjourn its proceedings pending the resolution of the judicial review applications. Bell applied for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision. Bell subsequently moved for an interim order staying any further proceedings by the Tribunal pending final disposition of its three judicial review applications.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the motion to stay the proceedings of the Tribunal.

Editor's Note: See the next case reported in this volume for another decision involving these parties.

Administrative Law - Topic 3289

Judicial review - General - Stay of proceedings pending before tribunal - Considerations - General - Complaints of discrimination were made against Bell Canada - Bell sought an order staying any further proceedings by a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal pending the final disposition of three judicial review applications commenced by Bell - Bell argued that it was settled law that where a judicial review application raised issues going to the essence of an administrative tribunal's jurisdiction or of its constitution, then the court would not hesitate to stay a tribunal's proceedings - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, rejected the submission, stating that based on the nature of Bell's challenge to the appointment of the Tribunal, and upon reviewing the scheme of the Act and the role and function of the investigator, the Commission and the Tribunal, the court should not intervene at this stage - Bell's motion was therefore to be determined in accordance with the three-stage test for granting a stay of proceedings - See paragraphs 22 to 33.

Administrative Law - Topic 3290

Judicial review - General - Stay of proceedings pending before tribunal - Considerations - Balance of convenience - Complaints of discrimination were made against Bell Canada - Bell sought an order staying any further proceedings by a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal pending the final disposition of three judicial review applications commenced by Bell - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that in arriving at a decision as to the balance of convenience, the court must consider the public interest in having complaints of discrimination dealt with expeditiously - The court concluded that as a matter of balance of convenience, taking into account the public interest, and the interest of the complainants, a stay should not be granted - See paragraphs 44 to 47.

Administrative Law - Topic 3291

Judicial review - General - Stay of proceedings pending before tribunal - Considerations - Irreparable harm - Complaints of discrimination were made against Bell Canada - Bell sought an order staying any further proceedings by a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal pending the final disposition of three judicial review applications commenced by Bell - Bell claimed that it would be required to expend considerable effort, undergo a disruption of its business and incur costs of litigation in preparation for the Tribunal hearings which would be unnecessary if any of its judicial review applications succeeded - Bell argued that the exposure to such costs and disruptions was well recognized in law as constituting irreparable harm - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, rejected the submission, stating that in the present case it did not find any special circumstances permitting the court to treat costs or alleged disruptions as irreparable harm - See paragraphs 38 to 41.

Cases Noticed:

Pfeiffer v. Redling et al. (1996), 116 F.T.R. 173 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 22, footnote 1].

Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Ontario (Minister of Citizenship) et al. (1993), 62 O.A.C. 1; 18 C.H.R.R. D/89 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 22, footnote 1].

Law Society of Upper Canada v. Canada (Attorney General) (1996), 28 O.R.(3d) 460 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 22, footnote 1].

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local 148 v. Air Canada (1991), 44 F.T.R. 206 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 22, footnote 1].

Ontario College of Art v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.)(No. 1) (1992), 19 C.H.R.R. D/195 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 22, footnote 1].

Cooper v. Canadian Human Rights Commission (1996), 204 N.R. 1; 140 D.L.R.(4th) 193 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

Bell v. Canadian Human Rights Commission - see Cooper v. Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Syndicat des employés de production du Québec et de l'Acadie v. Commission canadienne des droits de la personne, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 879; 100 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 26].

Miller v. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al. (1996), 112 F.T.R. 195 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 27].

Boahene-Agbo v. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al. (1994), 86 F.T.R. 101 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 28].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al. (1993), 71 F.T.R. 214 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 29].

Selvarajan v. Race Relations Board, [1976] 1 All E.R. 12 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 554; 149 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 30, footnote 3].

Slattery v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, [1994] 2 F.C. 574; 73 F.T.R. 161 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 30, footnote 3].

Cedarvale Tree Services Ltd. v. Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183 (1971), 22 D.L.R.(3d) 40 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Newfoundland Telephone Co. v. Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities (Nfld.), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 623; 134 N.R. 241; 95 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271; 301 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 31].

Arthur v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1993] 1 F.C. 94; 147 N.R. 288; 98 D.L.R.(4th) 254; 18 Imm. L.R.(2d) 22 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 31, footnote 4].

Committee for Justice and Liberty Foundation et al. v. National Energy Board et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369; 9 N.R. 115, refd to. [para. 32, footnote 5].

Latimer (W.D.) Co. v. Bray (1974), 52 D.L.R.(3d) 161 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 32, footnote 5].

Vezina v. Canadian Human Rights Commission and Hucker, [1992] 3 F.C. 675; 58 F.T.R. 89 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 32, footnote 5].

Metropolitan Stores (MTS) Ltd. v. Manitoba Food and Commercial Workers, Local 832 and Labour Board (Man.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 110; 73 N.R. 341; 46 Man.R.(2d) 241; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 18 C.P.C.(2d) 273; 25 Admin. L.R. 20, refd to. [para. 34, footnote 6].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311; 164 N.R. 1; 60 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 34, footnote 7].

National Bank of Canada v. Granda, [1984] 2 F.C. 249 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 34, footnote 7].

Whirlpool Corp. et al. v. Camco Inc. et al. (1995), 105 F.T.R. 268; 65 C.P.R.(3d) 63 (T.D.), appld. [para. 34].

American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd., [1975] A.C. 396 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 34].

Nature Co. v. Sci-Tech Educational Inc. (1992), 141 N.R. 363; 41 C.P.R.(3d) 359 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Brocklebank v. Canada (Minister of National Defence) et al. (1994), 86 F.T.R. 23 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 40].

ICN Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (Can.) (1995), 65 C.P.R.(3d) 1 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 42].

Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.) et al. (1988), 30 O.A.C. 301; 67 O.R.(2d) 492 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 44].

Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.) (1989), 10 C.H.R.R. D/5877 (Ont. Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 46, footnote 11].

Counsel:

René Duval, for the intervenor;

Royal L. Heenan, Stanley Fisher and Thomas E.F. Brady, for the applicant;

Peter C. Engelmann, for the respondent, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada;

Larry Steinberg, for the respondent, Canadian Telephone Employees Association.

Solicitors of Record:

Canadian Human Rights Commission, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor;

Heenan Blaikie, Montréal, Québec, for the applicant;

Caroline Engelmann Gottheil, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada;

Koskie Minsky, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent, Canadian Telephone Employees Association.

This motion was heard on January 22, 1997, at Montréal, Québec, before Richard, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on February 21, 1997.