Price v. Concord Transportation Inc., (2003) 238 F.T.R. 113 (FC)

• Judge: Heneghan, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 28, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2003), 238 F.T.R. 113 (FC);2003 FC 946

Price v. Concord Transportation Inc. (2003), 238 F.T.R. 113 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] F.T.R. TBEd. AU.019

Wendy Price (applicant) v. Concord Transportation Inc. (respondent)

(T-1010-01; 2003 FC 946)

Indexed As: Price v. Concord Transportation Inc.

Federal Court

Heneghan, J.

August 1, 2003.

Summary:

The Canadian Human Rights Commission decided not to deal with a complaint filed by the applicant against the respondent. The applicant applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 9102

Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Standard of review - The applicant filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) against the respondent, claiming that she had been denied a contract as the result of sexual discrimination - The alleged discrimination occurred in June 1997 and the complaint was filed in October 1998 - The CHRC decided not to deal with the complaint due to the delay in filing the complaint - The applicant applied for judicial review - The Federal Court considered the purpose of the limitation period, the lack of a privative clause, the discretionary statutory language of the Canadian Human Rights Act and the expertise of the CHRC in respect to fact finding and held that the applicable standard of review was patent unreasonableness - See paragraphs 35 to 42.

Civil Rights - Topic 7069.01

Federal or provincial legislation - Commissions or boards - Jurisdiction - Complaints - Delay - The plaintiff was denied a contract in June 1997 on the basis that one of her employees did not possess the required experience - In August 1997, that employee was hired by the respondent - The plaintiff learned of the hiring in May 1998 and filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) in October 1998 - She claimed she was denied the contract as a result of sexual discrimination - The CHRC decided not to deal with the complaint due to the delay in filing the complaint - The applicant applied for judicial review - The Federal Court held that the CHRC's conclusion that the alleged discriminatory act was in June 1997 was supported by the evidence - Section 41 of the Canadian Human Rights Act provided a limitation period of 12 months, which had expired - See paragraphs 43 to 51.

Civil Rights - Topic 7115

Federal or provincial legislation - Practice - Judicial review (incl. standard of review) - [See Administrative Law - Topic 9102 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7118

Federal or provincial legislation - Practice - Limitation period - [See Civil Rights - Topic 7069.01 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7119

Federal or provincial legislation - Practice - Discovery and disclosure - The applicant filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) against the respondent, claiming that she had been denied a contract as the result of sexual discrimination - The CHRC conducted an investigation and forwarded the Investigation Report to both parties - Both parties responded, but the respondent's reply was not forwarded to the plaintiff - The CHRC decided not to deal with the complaint - The applicant applied for judicial review, arguing that the CHRC breached its duty of procedural fairness by not proceeding with cross-disclosure - The Federal Court rejected the argument - The respondent had not raised new matters in its reply - The issue was apparent on the face of the plaintiff's complaint - See paragraphs 45 to 49.

Cases Noticed:

Slattery v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, [1994] 2 F.C. 574; 81 F.T.R. 1 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 19].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Canadian Human Rights Commission and Boone (1993), 60 F.T.R. 142 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 20].

Peixeiro v. Haberman, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 549; 217 N.R. 371; 103 O.A.C. 161; 151 D.L.R.(4th) 429; 30 M.V.R.(3d) 41, refd to. [para. 22].

S.D. v. Scoles et al., [2001] O.T.C. Uned. 702; 10 C.P.C.(5th) 285 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 22].

Cape Breton Development Corp. v. Hynes, [1999] 164 F.T.R. 32 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 25].

Holmes v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (1999), 242 N.R. 148 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Canadian Human Rights Commission and Boone (1993), 60 F.T.R. 142 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 26].

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.), leave to appeal dismissed (1999), 243 N.R. 397 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Burnell et al. (1997), 131 F.T.R. 146 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 30].

International Longshore & Warehouse Union (Marine Section), Local 400 v. Oster et al., [2002] 2 F.C. 430; 212 F.T.R. 111 (T.D.), 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; 160 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 36].

Ryan v. Law Society of New Brunswick (2003), 302 N.R. 1; 257 N.B.R.(2d) 207; 674 A.P.R. 207; 223 D.L.R.(4th) 577 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

Dr. Q., Re (2003), 302 N.R. 34; 179 B.C.A.C. 170; 295 W.A.C. 170; 223 D.L.R.(4th) 599 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

Dr. Q. v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia - see Dr. Q., Re.

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 554; 149 N.R. 1; 100 D.L.R.(4th) 658, refd to. [para. 41].

Counsel:

Kelly Aitchison, for the applicant;

Susan Crawford, for the respondent;

Philippe Dufrense, for the intervenor.

Solicitors of Record:

Aitchison Law Office, Oshawa, Ontario, for the applicant;

Crawford Chondon & Andree, Brampton, Ontario, for the respondent;

Philippe Dufrense, Canadian Human Rights Commission, for the intervenor.

This application was heard on January 28, 2003, at Toronto, Ontario, by Heneghan, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on August 1, 2003.