MacLean v. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al., (2003) 243 F.T.R. 219 (FC)

• Judge: O'Keefe, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 12, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2003), 243 F.T.R. 219 (FC);2003 FC 1459

MacLean v. CHRC (2003), 243 F.T.R. 219 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] F.T.R. TBEd. DE.026

Ronald S. MacLean (applicant) v. The Canadian Human Rights Commission (respondent) and Marine Atlantic Inc. (respondent) and Canadian Autoworkers (CAW) (respondent)

(T-126-01; 2003 FC 1459)

Indexed As: MacLean v. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al.

Federal Court

O'Keefe, J.

December 11, 2003.

Summary:

MacLean was an employee of Marine Atlantic and a member of Canadian Auto Workers (CAW). MacLean and other employees were laid off when a ferry service was discontinued. Marine Atlantic and CAW had negotiated an agreement that provided compensation to the laid-off employees based on their years of service and the number of years remaining until their age of early or normal retirement. The agreement made distinctions among and between different age groups in allocating separation benefits. MacLean filed complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission alleging that the agreement made discriminatory distinctions based on age. The Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissed the complaint. MacLean applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 549

The hearing and decision - Decisions of the tribunal - Reasons for decision - Sufficiency of - MacLean was an employee of Marine Atlantic and a member of Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) - MacLean and some of his co-workers were laid off when a ferry service was discontinued - Their employer and their union had negotiated a compensation agreement for the laid-off employees - MacLean complained to the Canadian Human Rights Commission that the agreement made discriminatory distinctions based on age - The Commission dismissed the complaint - MacLean applied for judicial review - The Federal Court held that the Commission provided sufficient reasons for its decision where it clearly stated it was not discriminatory to provide different categories of benefits for those who were more likely to be affected than others by the closure of the ferry service - See paragraph 47.

Administrative Law - Topic 608

The hearing and decision - Disclosure by tribunal - To parties of material used or relied upon by the tribunal in making its decision - MacLean and some of his co-workers were laid off - Their employer and their union had negotiated a compensation agreement for the laid-off employees - MacLean complained to the Canadian Human Rights Commission that the agreement made discriminatory distinctions based on age - The Commission dismissed the complaint - MacLean argued that the Commission breached the principles of natural justice or procedural fairness by failing to disclose to him all of the materials that it considered in reaching its decision (i.e., the respondents' responses to an investigator's initial and supplemental reports) - The Federal Court rejected the argument where the comments did not contain facts that differed from the investigation reports - See paragraphs 43 to 44.

Administrative Law - Topic 3202

Judicial review - General - Scope or standard of review - MacLean was an employee of Marine Atlantic and a member of Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) - MacLean and some of his co-workers were laid off when a ferry service was discontinued - Marine Atlantic and CAW had negotiated an agreement that provided compensation to the laid-off employees based on their years of service and the number of years remaining until their age of early or normal retirement - The agreement made distinctions among and between different age groups in allocating separation benefits - MacLean filed complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission alleging that the agreement made discriminatory distinctions based on age - The Commission dismissed the complaint - MacLean applied for judicial review - The Federal Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness simpliciter and dismissed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 9102

Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Standard of review - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3202 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 996.1

Discrimination - Employment - Age - Separation benefits - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3202 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7115

Federal or provincial legislation - Practice - Judicial review (incl. standard of review) - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3202 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7119

Federal or provincial legislation - Practice - Discovery and disclosure - [See Administrative Law - Topic 608 ].

Cases Noticed:

Holmes v. Canada (Attorney General) (1997), 130 F.T.R. 251 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 35].

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

Attis v. Board of Education of District No. 15 et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 825; 195 N.R. 81; 171 N.B.R.(2d) 321; 437 A.P.R. 321, refd to. [para. 10].

Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15 - see Attis v. Board of Education of District No. 15 et al.

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. 40].

Gee v. Minister of National Revenue (2002), 284 N.R. 321; 2002 FCA 4, refd to. [para. 42].

Mercier v. Commission canadienne des droits de la personne (1994), 167 N.R. 241 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 46].

Marine Atlantic Inc. v. Canadian Merchant Service Guild et al. (2000), 258 N.R. 112 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General) (1997), 135 F.T.R. 105 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 50].

Counsel:

Ronald S. MacLean, on his own behalf, for the applicant;

John MacPherson, Q.C., for the respondent, Marine Atlantic Inc.;

Lewis N. Gottheil, for the respondent, Canadian Autoworkers.

Solicitors of Record:

Patterson Palmer Hunt Murphy, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the respondent, Marine Atlantic Inc.;

Lewis N. Gottheil, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent, Canadian Autoworkers.

This application was heard at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, on June 12, 2003, by O'Keefe, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision at Ottawa, Ontario, on December 11, 2003.