Conroy v. Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, (2012) 415 F.T.R. 179 (FC)

• Judge: Bédard, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 28, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2012), 415 F.T.R. 179 (FC);2012 FC 887

Conroy v. Prof. Institute (2012), 415 F.T.R. 179 (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: [2012] F.T.R. TBEd. JL.027

Dr. Patricia Conroy (applicant) v. The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (respondent)

(T-1471-11; 2012 FC 887; 2012 CF 887)

Indexed As: Conroy v. Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada

Federal Court

Bédard, J.

July 13, 2012.

Summary:

The applicant was employed by the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) as a unionized psychologist and, as such, was a member of the respondent union. As of 1995, the applicant encountered various problems in her career advancement within the CSC. She sought the respondent's assistance and support in 2001, 2005 and 2010, and claimed that on all occasions she received differential representation from the respondent, based on her gender. In 2010, she filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, alleging discrimination under ss. 9 and 10 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. In particular, she alleged that, from 2001 to 2010, the respondent failed to offer her adequate representation and offered much more meaningful representation to similarly situated male members. The Commission decided, pursuant to s. 41 of the Act, not to deal with the complaint. The applicant sought judicial review.

The Federal Court allowed the application and remitted the matter to the Commission.

Administrative Law - Topic 549

The hearing and decision - Decisions of the tribunal - Reasons for decisions - Sufficiency of - The applicant was employed by the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) as a unionized psychologist and, as such, was a member of the respondent union - As of 1995, the applicant encountered various problems in her career advancement within the CSC - She sought the respondent's assistance and support in 2001, 2005 and 2010, and claimed that on all occasions she received differential representation from the respondent, based on her gender - In 2010, she filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, alleging discrimination under ss. 9 and 10 of the Canadian Human Rights Act - In particular, she alleged that, from 2001 to 2010, the respondent failed to offer her adequate representation and offered much more meaningful representation to similarly situated male members - The Commission decided not to deal with the complaint pursuant to s. 41 of the Act on the basis that, when the applicant sought assistance in March 2010, she was not a member of the respondent, because she was not a "member in good standing", having failed to pay her membership dues - The applicant sought judicial review - The Federal Court allowed the application and remitted the matter to the Commission - In reading the Commission's very brief decision, the court was unable to determine whether the Commission had turned its mind to the applicant's allegations and arguments in response to the s. 40/41 Report and grappled with them - It had to be borne in mind that the Commission was acting at the pre-investigation stage, where it was to take the applicant's factual allegations as true, and the decision had the effect of dismissing the applicant's complaint without further investigation - Further, rejecting a complaint at the pre-investigation stage was an exception - The Commission had to explain why it considered that a complaint fell outside of its jurisdiction pursuant to s. 41.

Civil Rights - Topic 7069

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Commissions or boards - Jurisdiction - Complaints - General - [See Administrative Law - Topic 549 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7115

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Practice - Judicial review - Standard of review - The Federal Court held that "... the jurisprudence satisfactorily established that a decision by the [Canadian Human Rights] Commission to refuse to deal with a complaint on the basis that it did not disclose a link with a prohibited ground of discrimination is reviewable under the reasonableness standard ... The issue related to the timeliness of the complaint and to whether the Commission should extend the limitation period, is also reviewable under the reasonableness standard. This type of decision involves an exercise of discretion and the Court should show deference ..." - See paragraphs 15 and 16.

Cases Noticed:

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 14].

Best v. Canada (Attorney General) (2011), 427 N.R. 381; 2011 FCA 351, refd to. [para. 15].

Hartjes v. Canada (Attorney General) (2008), 334 F.T.R. 277; 2008 FC 830, refd to. [para. 15].

Tomar v. Toronto-Dominion Bank (2009), 345 F.T.R. 262; 2009 FC 595, refd to. [para. 15].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Maracle et al., [2012] 2 C.N.L.R. 37; 404 F.T.R. 173; 2012 FC 105, refd to. [para. 15].

Halifax (Regional Municipality) v. Human Rights Commission (N.S.) et al. (2012), 428 N.R. 107; 316 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 1002 A.P.R. 1; 343 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 2012 SCC 10, refd to. [para. 15].

Richard v. Canada (Attorney General) (2010), 410 N.R. 145; 327 D.L.R.(4th) 292; 2010 FCA 292, refd to. [para. 16].

Bredin v. Canada (Attorney General) (2008), 383 N.R. 192; 2008 FCA 360, refd to. [para. 16].

Cooper v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 854; 204 N.R. 1; 140 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 28].

Canada Post Corp. v. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al. (1997), 130 F.T.R. 241; 71 A.C.W.S.(3d) 935 (T.D.), affd. (1999), 245 N.R. 397 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Comstock v. Public Service Alliance of Canada et al. (2007), 310 F.T.R. 277; 2007 FC 335, refd to. [para. 32].

Hicks v. Canada (Attorney General) (2008), 334 F.T.R. 260; 2008 FC 1059, refd to. [para. 32].

Michon-Hamelin v. Canada (Attorney General), [2007] F.T.R. Uned. 869; 2007 FC 1258, refd to. [para. 32].

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 708; 317 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 340; 986 A.P.R. 340; 424 N.R. 220; 2011 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 39].

Counsel:

Patricia Conroy, for the applicant;

Steven Welchner, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record :

Welchner Law Office Professional Corporation, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondents.

This application was heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 28, 2012, by Bédard, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on July 13, 2012.