Bell Canada v. Canadian Telephone Employees Association et al., (2000) 188 F.T.R. 85 (TD)

• Judge: Pinard, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: July 07, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2000), 188 F.T.R. 85 (TD)

Bell Can. v. CTEA (2000), 188 F.T.R. 85 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] F.T.R. TBEd. JL.154

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

(T-2281-99)

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

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Pinard, J.

July 7, 2000.

Summary:

The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, the Canadian Telephone Employees Association and Femmes Action brought various wage discrimination complaints against Bell Canada. Bell Canada brought three interlocutory motions in connection with the complaints. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal dismissed the motions. Bell Canada applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the application as premature.

Administrative Law - Topic 3220

Judicial review - General - Interim applications or rulings - Wage discrimination complaints were brought against Bell Canada - The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal dismissed three interlocutory motions brought by Bell - Bell sought judicial review - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the application as premature - There were no special reasons to justify exercising discretion under s. 18.1(3) of the Federal Court Act - The alleged errors were not finally dispositive of a substantive right and did not go to the legality of the Tribunal itself - Further, the process before the Tribunal was designed to be summary in nature - Additionally, Bell would not suffer serious hardship if required to continue without having the questions resolved - Even if the Tribunal erred in dismissing the motions, that error might not affect the final outcome - If ultimately unsuccessful, Bell could seek judicial review - The court could consider the alleged errors at that time - Accordingly, there was another appropriate remedy available.

Administrative Law - Topic 3348

Judicial review - General - Practice - Time for application - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3220 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 7096

Judicial review - Bars - Discretionary bars - Existence of convenient or adequate alternative remedy - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3220 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 9117

Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Review of interlocutory orders - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3220 ].

Courts - Topic 4052

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Requirement of lack of other remedy - [See Administrative law - Topic 3220 ].

Courts - Topic 4057

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Judicial review of interlocutory decisions - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3220 ].

Courts - Topic 4071.3

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Practice - Judicial review applications - Time for - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3220 ].

Cases Noticed:

Bell Canada v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada et al., [1999] 1 F.C. 113; 233 N.R. 87 (F.C.A.), reving. (1998), 143 F.T.R. 81 (T.D.), leave to appeal refused (1999), 243 N.R. 397 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 4, footnote 1].

Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Staff of the Non-Public Funds, Canadian Forces et al., [1996] 3 F.C. 789; 199 N.R. 81 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 4, footnote 2].

Zündel v. Citron et al. (2000), 256 N.R. 125 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Danmore Shoe Co., Re, [1974] 1 F.C. 22; 1 N.R. 422 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 13, footnote 4].

Minister of National Revenue v. Schnurer Estate, [1997] 2 F.C. 545; 208 N.R. 339 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 13, footnote 4].

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 7 C.R.(4th) 117; 83 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 14, footnote 5].

Szczecka v. Ministre de l'Emploi et de l'Immigration (1993), 170 N.R. 58; 25 Imm. L.R.(2d) 70 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canada 3000 Airlines Ltd. et al., [1999] F.T.R. Uned. 271 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 16].

Air Canada v. Lorenz et al. (1999), 175 F.T.R. 211 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 17].

Novopharm Ltd. v. Aktiebolaget Astra et al. (1996), 110 F.T.R. 307 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 22].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes, p. 386 [para. 9].

Counsel:

Gary Rosen and Alexandre Buswell, for the applicant;

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

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

René Duval, for the respondent, Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Solicitors of Record:

Heenan, Blaikie, Montreal, Quebec, for the applicant;

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

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

Legal Services Branch, Canadian Human Rights Commission, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent, Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Pinard, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, heard this application at Montreal, Quebec, on May 29 and 30, 2000, and delivered the following reasons for order on July 7, 2000, in Ottawa, Ontario.