Doolan et al. v. Canada Post, (2005) 281 F.T.R. 286 (FC)

• Judge: de Montigny, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: September 21, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2005), 281 F.T.R. 286 (FC);2006 FC 1414

Doolan v. Can. Post (2005), 281 F.T.R. 286 (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. OC.049

Kenneth Doolan, Ginette Allard, Livio Boni, Carole Charron, Lawrence Sitahal (demandeurs) v. Société Canadienne des postes (défendeur)

(T-2116-04; 2005 CF 1414; 2006 FC 1414)

Indexed As: Doolan et al. v. Canada Post

Federal Court

de Montigny, J.

October 14, 2005.

Summary:

Employees of Canada Post filed a complaint against Canada Post with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, alleging that Canada Post discriminated against them because a manual dexterity test they had to take to obtain a permanent position disadvantaged them with respect to younger employees with less seniority. The employees also filed a grievance, which was dismissed. The Commission decided not to request the appointment of a human rights tribunal because Canada Post had proven the existence of a bona fide occupational requirement within the meaning of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The employees applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Civil Rights - Topic 994

Discrimination - Employment - Age - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 7069 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 998

Discrimination - Employment - Exceptions - Bona fide or reasonable occupational requirement or qualification - [See Civil Rights - Topic 7069 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7069

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Commissions or boards - Jurisdiction - Complaints - General - Employees of Canada Post filed a complaint against Canada Post with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, alleging that Canada Post discriminated against them because a manual dexterity test they had to take to obtain a permanent position disadvantaged them with respect to younger employees with less seniority - The Commission decided not to request the appointment of a human rights tribunal because Canada Post had proven the existence of a bona fide occupational requirement within the meaning of the Canadian Human Rights Act - The employees applied for judicial review - The Federal Court dismissed the application - On the facts and the documentary evidence before it, the Commission could reasonably find that Canada Post had established the existence of a bona fide occupational requirement - Not only was the assessment personalized and relevant to the purpose sought, but Canada Post also proved that without the test it would be impossible for it to accommodate without sustaining undue hardship - See paragraphs 37 to 51.

Civil Rights - Topic 7115

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Practice - Judicial review (incl. standard of review) - Employees of Canada Post filed a complaint against Canada Post with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, alleging that Canada Post discriminated against them because a manual dexterity test they had to take to obtain a permanent position disadvantaged them with respect to younger employees with less seniority - The Commission decided not to request the appointment of a human rights tribunal because Canada Post had proven the existence of a bona fide occupational requirement within the meaning of the Canadian Human Rights Act - The employees applied for judicial review - The Federal Court held that the applicable standard of review was reasonableness - See paragraphs 28 to 36.

Cases Noticed:

Dragage F.R.P.D. ltée v. Bouchard et al. (1994), 84 F.T.R. 81 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 26].

Vancouver Island Peace Society v. Canada (Minister of National Defence) et al., [1994] 1 F.C. 102; 64 F.T.R. 127 (T.D.), affd. (1995), 179 N.R. 106 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Bell Canada v. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al., [1991] 1 F.C. 356; 39 F.T.R. 97 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 26].

Chopra v. Canada (Treasury Board) et al. (1999), 168 F.T.R. 273 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 26].

Bressette v. Kettle and Stony Point First Nations Band Council (1997), 137 F.T.R. 189 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 26].

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. 29].

Cooper v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 854; 204 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 29].

Dr. Q., Re, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226; 302 N.R. 34; 179 B.C.A.C. 170; 295 W.A.C. 170, refd to. [para. 30].

Dr. Q. v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (B.C.) - see Dr. Q., Re.

Ryan v. Law Society of New Brunswick, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 247; 302 N.R. 1; 257 N.B.R.(2d) 207; 674 A.P.R. 207, refd to. [para. 30].

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. 30].

Voice Construction Ltd. v. Construction and General Workers' Union, Local 92, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 609; 318 N.R. 332; 346 A.R. 201; 320 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 30].

Gee v. Minister of National Revenue (2002), 284 N.R. 321; 2002 FCA 4, refd to. [para. 32].

MacLean v. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al. (2003), 243 F.T.R. 219 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 34].

MacLean v. Marine Atlantic Inc. - see MacLean v. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al.

Canada (Attorney General) v. Grover (2004), 252 F.T.R. 244; 2004 FC 704, refd to. [para. 34].

Wang v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (2005), 272 F.T.R. 208; 2005 FC 654, refd to. [para. 34].

Gardner v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004), 250 F.T.R. 115; 2004 FC 493, affd. (2005), 339 N.R. 91 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Singh (S.K.) v. Canada (Attorney General) (2001), 201 F.T.R. 226 (T.D.), revd. (2002), 291 N.R. 365 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Chopra v. Canada (Attorney General) (2002), 222 F.T.R. 236; 2002 FCT 787, refd to. [para. 34].

Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General) (1999), 238 N.R. 76 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Tahmourpour v. Canada (Solicitor General) (2005), 332 N.R. 60; 2005 FCA 113, refd to. [para. 34].

McConnell v. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al., [2004] F.T.R. Uned. 667 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

Murray v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, [2003] N.R. Uned. 96 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Elkayam v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004), 256 F.T.R. 143 (F.C.), affd. 349 N.R. 305 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Ryan v. Law Society of New Brunswick, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 247; 302 N.R. 1; 257 N.B.R.(2d) 207; 674 A.P.R. 207, refd to. [para. 36].

Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20, refd to. [para. 36].

Dr. Q., Re, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226; 302 N.R. 34; 179 B.C.A.C. 170; 295 W.A.C. 170, refd to. [para. 36].

Dr. Q. v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (B.C.) - see Dr. Q., Re.

Human Rights Commission (Ont.) and O'Malley v. Simpsons-Sears, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536; 64 N.R. 161; 12 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 39].

Canadian National Railway Co. v. Bhinder and Canadian Human Rights Commission, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 561; 63 N.R. 185, refd to. [para. 39].

Public Service Employee Relations Commission (B.C.) v. British Columbia Government and Service Employees' Union, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3; 244 N.R. 145; 127 B.C.A.C. 161; 207 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 41].

Meiorin - see Public Service Employee Relations Commission (B.C.) v. British Columbia Government and Service Employees' Union.

Superintendent of Motor Vehicles (B.C.) et al. v. Council of Human Rights (B.C.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 868; 249 N.R. 45; 131 B.C.A.C. 280; 214 W.A.C. 280, refd to. [para. 41].

Grismer - see Superintendent of Motor Vehicles (B.C.) et al. v. Council of Human Rights (B.C.).

Human Rights Commission (Sask.) and Craig v. Saskatoon (City) and Saskatoon Professional Fire Fighters Union, Local 80, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1297; 103 N.R. 161; 81 Sask.R. 263, refd to. [para. 47].

Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (Que.) v. Nicolet (Ville), REJB 2001-25299, refd to. [para. 48].

Canadian National Railway Co. v. Bhinder and Canadian Human Rights Commission, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 561; 63 N.R. 185, refd to. [para. 49].

Counsel:

Pierre Langlois, for the applicants;

Suzanne Thibodeau, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Pierre Langlois, Montreal, Quebec, for the applicants;

Heenan Blaikie LLP, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent.

This application was heard on September 21, 2005, at Montreal, Quebec, by de Montigny, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment on October 14, 2005.