Bell Canada v. Canadian Telephone Employees Association et al., (2001) 272 N.R. 50 (FCA)

• Judge: Stone, Létourneau and Rothstein, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: May 24, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2001), 272 N.R. 50 (FCA);2001 FCA 161

Bell Can. v. CTEA (2001), 272 N.R. 50 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2001] N.R. TBEd. JN.012

Canadian Human Rights Commission (appellant) v. Canadian Telephone Employees Association, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada and Femmes Action (respondents) and Bell Canada (respondent) and Attorney General of Canada (intervener)

(A-698-00; 2001 FCA 161)

Indexed As: Bell Canada v. Canadian Telephone Employees Association et al.

Federal Court of Appeal

Stone, Létourneau and Rothstein, JJ.A.

May 24, 2001.

Summary:

Human rights complaints were filed against Bell Canada alleging discrimination on the basis of sex in relation to employment (i.e., a pay equity issue). A Canadian human rights tribunal was appointed. At the case planning stage Bell Canada raised issues of institutional independence and impartiality. The tribunal's vice-chairperson issued an interim decision wherein he concluded, particularly in light of recent amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act, that there were no problems of institutional bias or lack of institutional independence because of the institutional structure and decided that the hearings into the complaints should proceed. Bell Canada applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported 190 F.T.R. 42, allowed the application. The court held that the tribunal's vice-chairperson erred in law and was not correct in determining that the tribunal was an institutionally indepen­dent and impartial body with respect to the power of the Commission to issue guidelines bind­ing upon the tribunal and the power of the chairperson to approve the acting of a tribu­nal member after the expiry of his/her ap­pointment to conclude a matter. The court therefore quashed the decision of the tri­bunal's vice-chairperson and ruled that there could be no further proceedings on this matter until the problems identified in the court's reasons were corrected. The Canadian Human Rights Commission appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed Bell Canada's judicial review application.

Administrative Law - Topic 2093

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal - Bias - Institutional or systemic bias - Pursuant to ss. 27(2) and 27(3) of the Canadian Human Rights Act as amended, the Canadian Human Rights Commission had authority to issue guidelines bind­ing on human rights tribu­nals - The Fed­eral Court of Appeal ruled that there was no reasonable apprehension of institutional bias arising with regard to the Commission's power under s. 27 to issue guidelines - See paragraphs 34 to 42.

Administrative Law - Topic 2093

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal - Bias - Institutional or systemic bias - Section 48.2(2) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, as amended, gave the Chairperson of a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal power, where a member's ap­pointment expired during an inquiry, to allow the member to conclude the inquiry -The Federal Court of Appeal held that the power given to the Chairperson re­garding terms of office did not compro­mise the Tribunal's independence or im­partiality - See paragraphs 43 to 48.

Administrative Law - Topic 8866

Boards and tribunals - Members - Termi­nation of office - Extension to complete matter - [See second Administrative Law - Topic 2093 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 8868

Boards and tribunals - Members - Inde­pendence and impartiality - [See both Ad­ministrative Law - Topic 2093 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7083

Federal or provincial legislation - Boards of inquiry - Composition of - [See both Administrative Law - Topic 2093 ].

Cases Noticed:

Committee for Justice and Liberty Foun­da­tion et al. v. National Energy Board et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369; 9 N.R. 115; 68 D.L.R.(3d) 716, refd to. [para. 15].

Insurance Corp. of British Columbia v. Heerspink and Director, Human Rights Code, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 145; 43 N.R. 168, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Valente, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673; 64 N.R. 1; 14 O.A.C. 79; 49 C.R.(3d) 97; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 37 M.V.R. 9; 19 C.R.R. 354, refd to. [para. 15].

Lippé et autres v. Québec (Procureur géné­ral) et autres, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 114; 128 N.R. 1; 39 Q.A.C. 241; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 513; 5 C.R.R.(2d) 31; 5 M.P.L.R.(2d) 113, refd to. [para. 15].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 3; 177 N.R. 325; 122 D.L.R.(4th) 129, refd to. [para. 15].

Katz v. Vancouver Stock Exchange et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 405; 207 N.R. 72; 82 B.C.A.C. 29; 133 W.A.C. 29, refd to. [para. 15].

2747-3174 Québec Inc. v. Régie des permis d'alcool du Québec et autres, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 919; 205 N.R. 1; 140 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 15].

Reference Re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court (P.E.I.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3; 217 N.R. 1; 206 A.R. 1; 156 W.A.C. 1; 121 Man.R.(2d) 1; 158 W.A.C. 1; 156 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 483 A.P.R. 1; 150 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. R.D.S., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484; 218 N.R. 1; 161 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 477 A.P.R. 241; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 353, refd to. [para. 19].

Barry and Brosseau v. Alberta Securities Commission, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 301; 93 N.R. 1; 96 A.R. 241; [1989] 3 W.W.R. 456; 57 D.L.R.(4th) 458; 65 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 35 Admin. L.R. 1, refd to. refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Drybones, [1970] S.C.R. 282, refd to. [para. 20].

Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; 58 N.R. 1; 17 D.L.R.(4th) 422; 14 C.R.R. 13; 12 Admin. L.R. 137, refd to. [para. 20].

MacBain v. Canadian Human Rights Com­mission et al., [1985] 1 F.C. 856; 62 N.R. 117 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Energy and Chemical Workers' Union and Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., Re, [1986] 1 F.C. 103; 64 N.R. 126 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Public Ser­vice Alliance of Canada, [2000] 1 F.C. 146 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 36].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Bill of Rights, R.S.C. 1985, App. III, sect. 2(e) [para. 4].

Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6, sect. 11(1), sect. 11(4), sect. 15(1)(e), sect. 27(2), sect. 27(3), sect. 44(3), sect. 48.1, sect. 48.2 [para. 4].

Canadian Human Rights Act, An Act to Amend the, S.C. 1998, c. 9, sect. 20(2) [para. 4]; 27 [para. 4].

Statute Law (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) Amendment Act, R.S.C. 1985 (1st Supp.), c. 31, sect. 64, sect. 65 [para. 4].

Counsel:

René Duval and Philippe Dufresne, for the appellant;

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

Peter Engelmann and Jula Hughes, for the respondent, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada;

Roy L. Heenan, Q.C., John C. Murray and Thomas Brady, for the respondent, Bell Canada;

Donald J. Rennie, for the internvenor, Attorney General of Canada.

Solicitors of Record:

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

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

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

Heenan Blaikie, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent, Bell Canada;

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Canada.

This appeal was heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on April 3 and 4, 2001, before Stone, Létourneau and Rothstein, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. On May 24, 2001, Stone, J.A., delivered the following decision for the Court of Appeal.