Canada (Attorney General) v. Watkin, (2007) 313 F.T.R. 318 (FC)

• Judge: Tremblay-Lamer, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: July 04, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2007), 313 F.T.R. 318 (FC);2007 FC 745

Can. (A.G.) v. Watkin (2007), 313 F.T.R. 318 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] F.T.R. TBEd. JL.037

Attorney General of Canada (applicant) v. Jason Watkin (respondent)

(T-1325-06; 2007 FC 745)

Indexed As: Canada (Attorney General) v. Watkin

Federal Court

Tremblay-Lamer, J.

July 13, 2007.

Summary:

The Attorney General of Canada applied for judicial review of a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission that Watkin and the associated complainants had standing to institute a complaint against Health Canada and that the matter was within the Commission's jurisdiction to decide.

The Federal Court allowed the application, set aside the Commission's decision and dismissed the complaint against Health Canada under s. 41 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Civil Rights - Topic 905

Discrimination - General principles - Person - What constitutes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 7069 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7069

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Commissions or boards - Jurisdiction - Complaints - General - Watkin was the President and CEO of Biomedia Laboratories Inc. which was owned by Nutraceutical, of which Watkin was a shareholder - Biomedica sold and marketed products under the name "Recovery" destined for both human and animal consumption - In February 2002, Health Canada requested that Biomedica cease and desist advertising in relation to "Recovery" as it found this advertising to be contravening of s. 3 of the Food and Drugs Act - Watkin filed a human rights complaint against Health Canada with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, alleging that Health Canada had adversely discriminated against Biomedica in the provision of services, contrary to s. 5 of the Canadian Human Rights Act - The Commission held that Watkin had standing to bring the complaint and that the matter was within the Commission's jurisdiction - The Federal Court set aside the Commission's decision and dismissed the complaint against Health Canada under s. 41 of the Act - The Act was intended to protect individual human beings, and not corporate entities, from discrimination - The Commission did not have the jurisdiction to deal with a complaint alleging discriminatory practices against a corporation such as Biomedica - Further, Watkin lacked standing in his capacity as a shareholder of Nutraceutical to bring a complaint under the Act regarding the alleged discrimination by Health Canada against Biomedica - Watkin and Biomedica were separate legal entities, and from a legal standpoint the complaint at issue did not personally involve Watkin.

Cases Noticed:

United Parcel Service of Canada v. Thibodeau (2005), 280 F.T.R. 154; 2005 FC 608, refd to. [para. 15].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Bouvier et al. (1996), 114 F.T.R. 36 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 15].

Taylor v. Canada (Attorney General) (1997), 139 F.T.R. 140 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 15].

Bader v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare), [1996] C.H.R.D. No. 1 (Trib.), disagreed with [para. 20].

Bader v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare), [1998] C.H.R.D. No. 1 (Rev. Trib.), disagreed with [para. 20].

Canada (Secretary of State for External Affairs) et al. v. Menghani et al., [1994] 2 F.C. 102; 70 F.T.R. 81 (T.D.), dist. [para. 23].

Singh (Subhaschan), Re, [1989] 1 F.C. 430; 86 N.R. 69 (F.C.A.), dist. [para. 23].

Olympia Interiors Ltd. et al. v. Canada (1999), 167 F.T.R. 165 (T.D.), affd. [1999] N.R. Uned. 101 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Jose Pereira E Hijos S.A. v. Canada (Attorney General) (1996), 126 F.T.R. 167 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 27].

Meditrust Healthcare Inc. v. Shoppers Drug Mart et al. (2002), 165 O.A.C. 147 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Hercules Management Ltd. et al. v. Ernst & Young et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 165; 211 N.R. 352; 115 Man.R.(2d) 241; 139 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 31].

642947 Ontario Ltd. v. Fleischer et al. (2001), 152 O.A.C. 313; 56 O.R.(3d) 417 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Counsel:

Michael Roach, for the applicant;

Peter R. Lawless and William R. Southward, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

John H. Sims, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicant;

Johns, Southward, Glazier, Walton & Margetts, Victoria, British Columbia, for the respondent.

This application was heard on July 4, 2007, at Vancouver, British Columbia, by Tremblay-Lamer, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment on July 13, 2007.