Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Syndicat des communications de Radio-Canada (FNC-CSN), (2005) 272 F.T.R. 116 (FC)

• Judge: Shore, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 12, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2005), 272 F.T.R. 116 (FC);2005 FC 466

CBC v. CSN (2005), 272 F.T.R. 116 (FC)

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: [2005] F.T.R. TBEd. AP.046

Société Radio-Canada (demanderesse) v. Syndicat des communications de Radio-Canada (FNC-CSN) (défendeur)

(T-867-04; 2005 FC 466; 2005 CF 466)

Indexed As: Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Syndicat des communications de Radio-Canada (FNC-CSN)

Federal Court

Shore, J.

April 12, 2005.

Summary:

The Canadian Broadcasting Corp. applied for judicial review of a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission in which it (1) appointed a conciliator to attempt to settle a salary discrimination complaint (Canadian Human Rights Act, s. 47); and (2) asked the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to institute an inquiry into the complaint (s. 44(3)(a)).

The Federal Court allowed the application and remitted the matter to the Commission so that it could resume its investigation into the complaint.

Civil Rights - Topic 7069.01

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Commissions or boards - Jurisdiction - Complaints - Delay - On April 28, 1999, a union filed a salary discrimination complaint against the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (CBC) - On April 5, 2004, the Canadian Human Rights Commission (1) appointed a conciliator to attempt to settle the complaint (Canadian Human Rights Act, s. 47); and (2) asked the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to institute an inquiry into the complaint (s. 44(3)(a)) - The CBC applied for judicial review - It argued that it should be granted a stay of proceedings where it was deprived of its right to a fair hearing and full and complete defence because of the time that had elapsed since the complaint was filed - The Federal Court held that while it was a significant delay, it was satisfied that it was not grounds for a complete stay of proceedings - This case was in the context of administrative law, not criminal law - The CBC argued that any inquiry at this point would cause significant harm by obliging it to needlessly invest significant time, human resources and money in a futile exercise - The court held that the harm described by the CBC was not one regarded as significant harm which could offend the community's sense of fairness - See paragraphs 30 to 33.

Civil Rights - Topic 7069.02

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Commissions or boards - Jurisdiction - Complaints - Decision to request board of inquiry - A union filed a salary discrimination complaint against the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (CBC) - An investigator obtained information from the union and requested information from the CBC regarding comparative groups of employees - The CBC failed to provide the requested information - The investigator recommended an inquiry where the CBC had failed to present a material defence to the complaint - The Canadian Human Rights Commission (1) appointed a conciliator to attempt to settle the complaint (Canadian Human Rights Act, s. 47); and (2) asked the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to institute an inquiry into the complaint (s. 44(3)(a)) - The CBC applied for judicial review - The Federal Court allowed the application and remitted the matter to the Commission so that it could resume its investigation into the complaint - The investigation report was patently lacking in foundation as it offered no concrete evidence to support a conclusion that an inquiry into the complaint was warranted - It simply stated that the CBC had provided no material defence to the allegations in the complaint, i.e., the allegations had been accepted as they stood - See paragraphs 34 to 47.

Civil Rights - Topic 7104

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Practice - Status to complain - A union filed a salary discrimination complaint against the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (CBC) - The Canadian Human Rights Commission (1) appointed a conciliator to attempt to settle the complaint (Canadian Human Rights Act, s. 47); and (2) asked the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to institute an inquiry into the complaint (s. 44(3)(a)) - The CBC applied for judicial review - It argued that the Canadian Human Rights Act did not confer on a union the capacity to file a complaint as a union was not a "group of individuals" as contemplated in s. 40(1) - Alternatively, the CBC argued that the union had to obtain the consent of the alleged victims - The Federal Court rejected the arguments - It was accepted practice to treat a union as a group of individuals - As to whether the victims' consent was necessary, the Commission had complete control over its procedure - Section 40(2) provided that "if a complaint is made by someone other that the individual who is alleged to be the victim of the discriminatory practice to which the complaint relates, the Commission may refuse to deal with the complaint unless the alleged victim consents thereto" - Accordingly, consent was not a requirement - See paragraphs 23 to 25.

Civil Rights - Topic 7111

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Practice - Stay of proceedings - [See Civil Rights - Topic 7069.01 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7118

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Practice - Limitation period - On April 28, 1999, a union filed a salary discrimination complaint against the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (CBC) - The union alleged that the discriminatory act took place on August 7, 1995, and was ongoing - The Canadian Human Rights Commission (1) appointed a conciliator to attempt to settle the complaint (Canadian Human Rights Act, s. 47); and (2) asked the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to institute an inquiry into the complaint (s. 44(3)(a)) - The CBC applied for judicial review - It argued that the complaint was out of time pursuant to s. 41(1)(e) - The Federal Court dismissed the argument - As the allegation was one of systemic discrimination continuing over time, it was not filed out of time - See paragraphs 20 to 22.

Cases Noticed:

Bell Canada v. Communications, Energy and Paper Workers Union of Canada et al., [1999] 1 F.C. 113; 233 N.R. 87 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 22, footnote 2].

Bell Canada v. Canadian Telephone Employees Association et al., (2000), 188 F.T.R. 85 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 22, footnote 3].

Blencoe v. Human Rights Commission (B.C.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307; 260 N.R. 1; 141 B.C.A.C. 161; 231 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 30, footnote 4].

Conseil de la magistrature (N.-B.) v. Moreau-Bérubé, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 249; 281 N.R. 201; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 201; 636 A.P.R. 201, refd to. [para. 31, footnote 7].

Guay v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004), 256 F.T.R. 274 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 31, footnote 8].

Gee v. Minister of National Revenue (2002), 284 N.R. 321 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 34, footnote 9].

Cooper v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 854; 204 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 36, footnote 10].

Slattery v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, [1994] 2 F.C. 574; 73 F.T.R. 161 (T.D.), affd. (1996), 205 N.R. 383 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 36, footnote 11].

Miller v. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al. (1996), 112 F.T.R. 195 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 37, footnote 13].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Grover (2004), 252 F.T.R. 244 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 38, footnote 14].

Sosnowski v. Canada (Minister of Public Works and Government Services) et al. (2001), 214 F.T.R. 262 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 38, footnote 15].

Counsel:

Suzanne Thibaudeau and Nicholas Di'Iorio, accompanied by Jean Fredette, Senior Counsel, Human Resources Radio-Canada (as observer only), for the applicant;

Marie Pépin, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

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

Pepin et Roy, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent.

This application was heard on April 4 and 5, 2005, at Montreal, Quebec, before Shore, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on April 12, 2005.