Holmes v. Can. (A.G.), (1999) 242 N.R. 148 (FCA)

• Judge: Décary, Robertson and Sexton, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: April 29, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1999), 242 N.R. 148 (FCA)

Holmes v. Can. (A.G.) (1999), 242 N.R. 148 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] N.R. TBEd. MY.027

Betty M.E. Holmes (applicant/appellant) v. Attorney General of Canada (respondent/respondent) and Canadian Human Rights Commission (intervenor)

(A-430-97)

Indexed As: Holmes v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.

Federal Court of Appeal

Décary, Robertson and Sexton, JJ.A.

April 29, 1999.

Summary:

Holmes complained to the Canadian Human Rights Commission that the Depart­ment of Veterans Affairs discriminated against her by releasing her from her em­ployment due to disability. The Commission dismissed the complaint where it was sat­isfied, having regard to all the circumstances of the complaint, that an inquiry into the complaint was not warranted. Holmes applied for judicial review of the Commis­sion's decision.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported at 130 F.T.R. 251, dismissed the application. Holmes appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 7069.02

Federal or provincial legislation - Com­mis­sions or boards - Jurisdiction - Com­plaints - Decision to request board of inquiry - Holmes complained to the Cana­dian Human Rights Commission that the De­partment of Veterans Affairs discrimi­nated against her by releasing her from her em­ployment due to disability - The Com­mis­sion dismissed the complaint where it was satisfied, having regard to all the circum­stances, that an inquiry into the complaint was not warranted - Holmes applied for judicial review - The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed a dismissal of the applica­tion - The court stated that the Commis­sion was vested with a very wide latitude when exercising its screening functions - There was sufficient evidence on which the Commission could conclude that further consideration of the matter by a tribunal was not warranted.

Cases Noticed:

MacNeill v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 3 F.C. 261; 169 N.R. 368 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 1, footnote 2].

Bell Canada v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada et al., [1999] 1 F.C. 113; 233 N.R. 87 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 4, footnote 4].

Cooper v. Canadian Human Rights Com­mission, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 854; 204 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 5, footnote 5].

Counsel:

Andrew Raven, for the appellant;

Brian J. Saunders, for the respondent;

Patricia Lawrence and Bill Pentney, for the intervenor.

Solicitors of Record:

Raven, Allen, Cameron & Ballantyne, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent;

Patricia Lawrence, Canadian Human Rights Commission, for the intervenor.

This appeal was heard on April 29, 1999, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Décary, Robertson and Sexton, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered orally by Décary, J.A., on the same date.