Love v. Privacy Commissioner (Can.), (2014) 459 F.T.R. 11 (FC)

• Judge: Russell, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 08, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2014), 459 F.T.R. 11 (FC);2014 FC 643

Love v. Privacy Commr. (2014), 459 F.T.R. 11 (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: [2014] F.T.R. TBEd. JL.019

Steven Love (applicant) v. Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (respondent)

(T-1521-13; 2014 FC 643; 2014 CF 643)

Indexed As: Love v. Privacy Commissioner (Can.)

Federal Court

Russell, J.

July 2, 2014.

Summary:

The applicant filed a complaint with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC), alleging that Citizenship and Immigration Canada had violated his privacy rights. The applicant subsequently filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, alleging that the OPC failed to properly investigate and rule on his complaints because of his sexual orientation and his disability. The Commission decided not to deal with the complaint on the basis that it was trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith (Canadian Human Rights Act, s. 41(1)(d)). The applicant applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Civil Rights - Topic 907

Discrimination - General principles - Evidence and proof - [See Civil Rights - Topic 7080 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 912

Discrimination - General principles - Complaints - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 7080 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7070.1

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Commissions or boards - Jurisdiction - Complaints - Bars - [See Civil Rights - Topic 7080 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7080

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Commissions or boards - Jurisdiction - Pre-investigation decision not to deal with complaint - Love filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, alleging that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) failed to properly investigate and rule on his complaints because of his sexual orientation and disability - Love alleged that an OPC investigator referred to his partner as "your whatever" - As a result, his file was reassigned to a different investigator - He also alleged that the OPC patronized him by asking whether he required "any accommodations for a phone call" - The Commission decided not to deal with the complaint on the basis that it was trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith - The Federal Court dismissed Love's application for judicial review - There was no evidence to suggest that the OPC treated Love in an adverse differential manner based on a prohibited ground when it decided his complaint - While a complainant was not expected to put forward evidence at the pre-investigation stage, he had to allege facts that, if believed, would establish a link to a prohibited ground of discrimination - He could not merely assert that such a link existed - Bald allegations were insufficient to establish reasonable grounds for the complaint - The Commission's decision was reasonable.

Cases Noticed:

Hérold v. Canada Revenue Agency, [2011] F.T.R. Uned. 451; 2011 FC 544, refd to. [para. 14].

Keith v. Correctional Service of Canada (2012), 431 N.R. 121; 2012 FCA 117, refd to. [para. 14].

Hartjes v. Canada (Attorney General) (2008), 334 F.T.R. 277; 2008 FC 830, refd to. [para. 14].

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. 17].

Agraira v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) et al. (2013), 446 N.R. 65; 2013 SCC 36, refd to. [para. 17].

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2009), 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 18].

Exeter v. Canada (Attorney General) (2012), 433 N.R. 286; 2012 FCA 119, refd to. [para. 18].

Khela v. Mission Institution (Warden) et al. (2014), 455 N.R. 279; 351 B.C.A.C. 91; 599 W.A.C. 91; 2014 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 18].

Canadian Union of Public Employees et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour) (2003), 304 N.R. 76; 173 O.A.C. 38; 2003 SCC 29, refd to. [para. 18].

Sketchley v. Canada (Attorney General) (2005), 344 N.R. 257; 2005 FCA 404, refd to. [para. 18].

Bergeron v. Canada (Attorney General), [2013] F.T.R. Uned. 130; 2013 FC 301, 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. 24].

Konya v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2013), 439 F.T.R. 242; 2013 FC 975, refd to. [para. 24].

Punia v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2013), 441 F.T.R. 194; 2013 FC 1078, refd to. [para. 24].

Committee for Justice and Liberty Foundation et al. v. National Energy Board et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369; 9 N.R. 115, refd to. [para. 24].

Kniss v. Privacy Commissioner (Can.) (2013), 425 F.T.R. 137; 2013 FC 31, refd to. [para. 30].

O'Grady v. Bell Canada (2013), 423 F.T.R. 18; 2013 FC 1448, refd to. [para. 44].

Derksen v. Correctional Service of Canada, [2013] F.T.R. Uned. 542; 2013 FC 1120, refd to. [para. 51].

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board) et al. (2011), 424 N.R. 220; 317 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 340; 986 A.P.R. 340; 2011 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 59].

Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2014), 453 F.T.R. 239; 2014 FC 393, agreed with [para. 66].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Maracle et al. (2012), 404 F.T.R. 173; 2012 FC 105, refd to. [para. 67].

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. 69].

McIlvenna v. Bank of Nova Scotia (2013), 432 F.T.R. 311; 2013 FC 678, refd to. [para. 70].

Oleinik v. Privacy Commissioner (Canada), [2011] F.T.R. Uned. 965; 2011 FC 1266, refd to. [para. 82].

Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada et al. v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (2012), 428 N.R. 297; 2012 FCA 22, refd to. [para. 85].

Tl'azt'en First Nation v. Joseph (2013), 436 F.T.R. 79; 2013 FC 767, refd to. [para. 85].

International Relief Fund for the Afflicted and Needy (Canada) v. Minister of National Revenue (2013), 449 N.R. 95; 2013 FCA 178, refd to. [para. 85].

Counsel:

Steven Love, for the applicant;

Regan Morris, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Legal Services, Research and Policy Branch, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application for judicial review was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on April 8, 2014, before Russell, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment and reasons at Ottawa, Ontario, on July 2, 2014.