Corbiere v. Wikwemikong Tribal Police Services Board, (2007) 361 N.R. 69 (FCA)

• Judge: Décary, Evans and Malone, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: February 01, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2007), 361 N.R. 69 (FCA);2007 FCA 97

Corbiere v. Police Services Bd. (2007), 361 N.R. 69 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] N.R. TBEd. MR.058

The Wikwemikong Tribal Police Services Board (appellant) v. James Darin Corbiere (respondent)

(A-140-06; 2007 FCA 97)

Indexed As: Corbiere v. Wikwemikong Tribal Police Services Board

Federal Court of Appeal

Décary, Evans and Malone, JJ.A.

March 12, 2007.

Summary:

Corbiere filed a complaint against his former employer with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. He alleged that his employer discriminated against him on the basis of disability. An investigator recommended that the complaint be dismissed. The Commission dismissed the complaint. Corbiere applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court, in a decision reported at 289 F.T.R. 64, allowed the application and remitted the matter to a different investigator to re-investigate the complaint. The employer appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the order below and dismissed the application for judicial review.

Civil Rights - Topic 989

Discrimination - Employment - On basis of physical or mental disability - Corbiere was a police officer - He injured his back at work - He proposed to his employer that he act as a "Detective Constable" - Three months later, the employer informed Corbiere that he could no longer be accommodated and terminated his employment - Corbiere filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission - He alleged that his employer discriminated against him on the basis of disability - An investigator recommended that the complaint be dismissed - The Commission dismissed the complaint - Corbiere applied for judicial review - The applications judge allowed the application - The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the employer's appeal - The employer's general purpose in requiring their police officers to have the physical ability to perform full police duties was to ensure that their employees were able to perform the job of a police officer (or police constable) safely and efficiently - There was no indication that the employer did not act honestly and with a good faith belief that adopting the standard was necessary to ensure that their employees perform the job safely and efficiently - It did not intend to discriminate against Corbiere as a result of his disability - Finally, it was impossible to accommodate Corbiere without undue hardship - The job Corbiere believed the employer should have given him did not exist, nor was there any funding in the employer's budget to create it - See paragraphs 17 to 26.

Civil Rights - Topic 998

Discrimination - Employment - Exceptions - Bona fide or reasonable occupational requirement or qualification - [See Civil Rights - Topic 989 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7115

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Practice - Judicial review - Standard of review - Corbiere was a police officer - He injured his back at work - He proposed to his employer that he act as a "Detective Constable" - Three months later, the employer informed Corbiere that he could no longer be accommodated and terminated his employment - Corbiere filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission - He alleged that his employer discriminated against him on the basis of disability - An investigator recommended that the complaint be dismissed - The Commission dismissed the complaint - Corbiere applied for judicial review - The applications judge applied a standard of correctness and allowed the application - The employer appealed - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the applications judge erred in reviewing the Commission's decision on a correctness standard - While the Commission's decisions were entitled to some deference, the court would only intervene when an unreasonable decision was made - Accordingly, the court had to apply the reasonableness simpliciter standard directly to the Commission's decision - See paragraphs 13 to 16.

Cases Noticed:

Public Service Employee Relations Commission (B.C.) v. British Columbia Government and Service Employee's Union, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3; 244 N.R. 145; 127 B.C.A.C. 161; 207 W.A.C. 161, appld. [para. 9].

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. 13].

Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General) (1999), 238 N.R. 76 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Zündel v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2000), 267 N.R. 92 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Gee v. Minister of National Revenue (2002), 284 N.R. 321; 2002 FCA 4, refd to. [para. 14].

Holmes v. Canada (Attorney General) (1999), 242 N.R. 148 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Prairie Acid Rain Coalition et al. v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) et al., [2006] 3 F.C. 610; 345 N.R. 374; 2006 FCA 31, refd to. [para. 15].

McGill University Health Centre (Montreal General Hospital) v. Syndicat des employés de l'Hôpital général de Montréal et al. (2007), 356 N.R. 177; 2007 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 17].

Counsel:

Hugh N. MacDonald, for the appellant;

James Darin Corbiere, on his own behalf.

Solicitors of Record:

Hugh N. MacDonald, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, for the applicant.

This appeal was heard on February 1, 2007, at Toronto, Ontario, by Décary, Evans and Malone, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. Malone, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the court on March 12, 2007.