Chartrand v. Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (Alta.) et al., 2008 ABQB 207

• Judge: Binder, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: April 07, 2008
• Citations: 2008 ABQB 207;(2008), 444 A.R. 43 (QB)

Chartrand v. HRC (2008), 444 A.R. 43 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] A.R. TBEd. AP.095

Laura Marie Chartrand (applicant) v. Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (respondent) and MacLachlan and Mitchell Homes Inc. (respondent)

(0703 10327; 2008 ABQB 207)

Indexed As: Chartrand v. Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (Alta.) et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Binder, J.

April 7, 2008.

Summary:

Chartrand worked in the service and warranty department of MacLachlan and Mitchell Homes Inc. (MMHI). A service technician/carpenter position became open. The position involved small framing jobs and repairing minor household deficiencies such as finishing, drywall, floor repairs and door adjustments. Chartrand was allowed to fill the position temporarily while MMHI advertised it. She expressed an interest in the position. A journeyman carpenter with property maintenance knowledge was hired. Chartrand filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission, alleging gender discrimination. On the investigator's recommendation, the complaint was dismissed. The Chief Commissioner dismissed Chartrand's appeal. Chartrand sought judicial review.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Civil Rights - Topic 983

Discrimination - Employment - What constitutes discrimination - [See Civil Rights - Topic 7044.1 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 987

Discrimination - Employment - On basis of sex - [See Civil Rights - Topic 7044.1 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7044

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Commissions or boards - General - Role of investigator - Chartrand worked in the service and warranty department of MacLachlan and Mitchell Homes Inc. (MMHI) - A service technician/carpenter position became open - The position involved small framing jobs and repairing minor household deficiencies such as finishing, drywall, floor repairs and door adjustments - Chartrand was allowed to fill the position temporarily while MMHI advertised it - She expressed an interest in the position - A journeyman carpenter with property maintenance knowledge was hired - Chartrand filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission, alleging gender discrimination - On the investigator's recommendation, the complaint was dismissed - The Chief Commissioner dismissed Chartrand's appeal - Chartrand sought judicial review, asserting, inter alia, that the investigation was incomplete in that the investigator failed to interview her co-workers, including one in particular (Reeves) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - The investigation involved interviews with the construction manager, other management personnel and Chartrand - Chartrand had not established that Reeve's evidence was critical in that it would confirm her perception of gender discrimination - The investigation was not clearly deficient - The investigator was satisfied that there was no basis for the complaint - See paragraphs 20 to 29.

Civil Rights - Topic 7044

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Commissions or boards - General - Role of investigator - Chartrand worked in the service and warranty department of MacLachlan and Mitchell Homes Inc. (MMHI) - A service technician/carpenter position became open - The position involved small framing jobs and repairing minor household deficiencies such as finishing, drywall, floor repairs and door adjustments - Chartrand was allowed to fill the position temporarily while MMHI advertised it - She expressed an interest in the position - A journeyman carpenter with property maintenance knowledge was hired - Chartrand filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission, alleging gender discrimination - On the investigator's recommendation, the complaint was dismissed - The Chief Commissioner dismissed Chartrand's appeal - Chartrand sought judicial review - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - The court noted that Chartrand's supplemental brief raised issues of bias regarding the investigation - The investigator was tasked with collecting information and forming an opinion about the viability of particular cases - Forming an opinion did not, in itself, equate to bias - The record before the court of the investigator's conduct here did not raise a reasonable apprehension of bias - See paragraphs 30 and 31.

Civil Rights - Topic 7044.1

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Commissions or boards - General - Role of commissioner, chairperson, etc. - Chartrand worked in the service and warranty department of MacLachlan and Mitchell Homes Inc. (MMHI) - A service technician/carpenter position became open - The position involved small framing jobs and repairing minor household deficiencies such as finishing, drywall, floor repairs and door adjustments - Chartrand was allowed to fill the position temporarily while MMHI advertised it - She expressed an interest in the position - A journeyman carpenter with property maintenance knowledge was hired - Chartrand filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission, alleging gender discrimination - On the investigator's recommendation, the complaint was dismissed - The Chief Commissioner dismissed Chartrand's appeal - Chartrand sought judicial review, asserting, inter alia, that the Chief Commissioner wrongly applied a prima facie standard of proof to her claim when the Chief Commissioner's task was not to decide the case's merits - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - The Chief Commissioner's task was to decide whether there was a reasonable basis in the evidence for proceeding to the next stage - The Chief Commissioner's conclusion that Chartrand was not as well-qualified as the person eventually hired was entirely reasonable - The person hired had 20 years of related experience including formal training - Chartrand had two years of experience and no formal training - The evidence did not demonstrate discrimination - The Chief Commissioner also determined that there was no promise made to Chartrand or any other source of obligation for hiring her permanently to the position - This too was reasonable - Further, the duty of fairness was not breached - The Chief Commissioner provided Chartrand with an opportunity to fill any gaps that she had perceived in the investigation report - Chartrand was given the procedural safeguards appropriate to the context of the decision - See paragraphs 32 to 45.

Civil Rights - Topic 7046

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Commissions or boards - General - Duty of fairness - [See Civil Rights - Topic 7044.1 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7114

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Practice - Investigation of complaint (incl. report) - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 7044 ].

Cases Noticed:

Hamilton v. Board of Education of Wild Rose School Division No. 66 et al. (2002), 314 A.R. 340; 2002 ABQB 428, refd to. [para. 14].

Murray v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, [2002] F.T.R. Uned. 489; 115 A.C.W.S.(3d) 290; 2002 FCT 699, refd to. [para. 14].

Aziz v. Telesat Canada (1995), 103 F.T.R. 223 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 14].

Miller v. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al. (1996), 112 F.T.R. 195 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 14].

Bourgeois v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (2000), 96 A.C.W.S.(3d) 450 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 14].

Syndicat des employés de production du Québec et de l'Acadie v. Commission canadienne des droits de la personne et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 879; 100 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 14].

Consolidated-Bathurst Packaging Ltd. v. International Woodworkers of America, Local 2-69 and Labour Relations Board (Ont.), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 282; 105 N.R. 161; 38 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 15].

Canadian Union of Public Employees et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 539; 304 N.R. 76; 173 O.A.C. 38; 2003 SCC 29, refd to. [para. 15].

Law v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497; 236 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 15].

Shephard v. Fortin et al. (2004), 325 N.R. 158; 242 D.L.R.(4th) 529; 2004 FCA 254, refd to. [para. 15].

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. 15].

West Fraser Timber Co. v. Thomson (2001), 38 Admin. L.R.(3d) 178; 2001 BCSC 1139, refd to. [para. 15].

Universal Workers Union, LIUNA Local 183 et al. v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.) et al. (2006), 206 O.A.C. 199 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 15].

Small v. Caritas Health Group et al. (2003), 347 A.R. 322; 2003 ABQB 968, refd to. [para. 15].

Gainer v. Export Development Canada (2006), 295 F.T.R. 137; 2006 FC 814, refd to. [para. 15].

Mercier v. Commission canadienne des droits de la personne, [1994] 3 F.C. 3; 167 N.R. 241 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Kask v. Shimizu, Doe, Bloggs and Charles Camsell Hospital (1986), 69 A.R. 343 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 15].

Tahmourpour v. Canada (Solicitor General) (2005), 332 N.R. 60; 27 Admin. L.R.(4th) 315; 2005 FCA 113, refd to. [para. 15].

Calgary (City) v. Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (Alta.) - see Calgary (City) v. Cabalde.

Calgary (City) v. Cabalde (2003), 320 A.R. 314; 288 W.A.C. 314; 2003 ABCA 39, refd to. [para. 16].

Economic Development Edmonton v. Wong et al. (2005), 371 A.R. 362; 354 W.A.C. 362; 2005 ABCA 278, affing. [2004] A.R. Uned. 747; 33 Alta. L.R.(4th) 168; 2004 ABQB 546, refd to. [para. 17].

Economic Development Edmonton v. Baah et al., [2005] A.R. Uned. 245; 2005 ABCA 279, affing. (2003), 336 A.R. 280; 2003 ABQB 721, refd to. [para. 17].

Mis v. Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (Alta.) (2001), 293 A.R. 391; 257 W.A.C. 391; 2001 ABCA 212, refd to. [para. 17].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 18].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 18].

Edmonton Police Association et al. v. Edmonton (City) et al. (2007), 409 A.R. 1; 402 W.A.C. 1; 2007 ABCA 184, refd to. [para. 19].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 19].

United Nurses of Alberta, Local 33 et al. v. Capital Health Authority et al. (2001), 286 A.R. 178; 253 W.A.C. 178; 2001 ABCA 175, refd to. [para. 28].

Robertson v. Edmonton Chief of Police et al. (2004), 362 A.R. 44; 2004 ABQB 519, refd to. [para. 30].

Callan v. Suncor Inc. et al. (2006), 380 A.R. 247; 363 W.A.C. 247; 2006 ABCA 15, refd to. [para. 42].

Counsel:

Laura Chartrand, for the applicant;

Audrey Dean, for the respondent, Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission;

Kenneth Fitz and Tara C. Argent, for the respondent, MacLachlan and Mitchell Homes Inc.

This application was heard on March 6 and 7, 2008, by Binder, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following reasons for decision on April 7, 2008.