Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada (Treasury Board), (2005) 279 F.T.R. 242 (FC)

• Judge: de Montigny, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 06, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2005), 279 F.T.R. 242 (FC);2005 FC 1297

PSAC v. Can. (2005), 279 F.T.R. 242 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] F.T.R. TBEd. OC.019

Public Service Alliance of Canada (applicant) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada as represented by the Treasury Board (respondent)

(T-1081-04; 2005 FC 1297)

Indexed As: Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada (Treasury Board)

Federal Court

de Montigny, J.

September 21, 2005.

Summary:

The Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) filed a complaint, alleging discrimination on the ground of sex in relation to employment classification standards in the federal public service. Pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Canadian Human Rights Commission decided to dismiss the complaint without any further proceedings. PSAC applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court allowed the application, set aside the Commission's decision and remitted the matter to the Commission for redetermination.

Administrative Law - Topic 547

The hearing and decision - Decisions of the tribunal - Reasons for decision - When required - [See Civil Rights - Topic 7046 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7046

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Commissions or boards - General - Duty of fairness - The Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) filed a complaint, alleging discrimination on the ground of sex in relation to employment classification standards in the federal public service - An investigator's report recommended that the Canadian Human Rights Commission take no further proceedings with respect to the complaint - Pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Commission decided to dismiss the complaint without any further proceedings - No reasons were provided - Although PSAC requested reasons, the Commission stated that it did not have a statutory duty to give reasons and that the basis for the decision was the investigator's report - PSAC applied for judicial review - The Federal Court held that the Commission breached the duty of procedural fairness by failing to give reasons for its decision - The Commission dismissed PSAC's complaint without addressing its main arguments and on the basis of an inadequate investigator's report - The importance of providing reasons was magnified in this case given the 20 year time line since the complaint was filed and the large number of employees affected - See paragraphs 54 to 62.

Civil Rights - Topic 7114

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Practice - Investigation of complaint (incl. report) - The Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) filed a complaint, alleging discrimination on the ground of sex in relation to employment classification standards in the federal public service - An investigator's report recommended that the Canadian Human Rights Commission take no further proceedings with respect to the complaint - Pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Commission decided to dismiss the complaint without any further proceedings - No reasons were given - The Commission stated that the basis for the decision was the investigator's report - PSAC applied for judicial review - The Federal Court allowed the application - The investigator's report was defective where it failed to address one of PSAC's crucial arguments - The Commission's decision was not made on a fair basis and was unreasonable where it was not supported by an adequate investigation - See paragraphs 37 to 53.

Civil Rights - Topic 7115

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Practice - Judicial review (incl. standard of review) - The Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) filed a complaint, alleging discrimination on the ground of sex in relation to employment classification standards in the federal public service - The Canadian Human Rights Commission decided to dismiss the complaint pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Canadian Human Rights Act without any further proceedings - PSAC applied for judicial review - The Federal Court held that the Commission's decision not to send the complaint to a Human Rights Tribunal was reviewable on a standard of correctness - See paragraph 20.

Cases Noticed:

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; 62 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 18].

Cooper v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 854; 204 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 18].

Bell v. Canadian Human Rights Commission - see Cooper v. Canadian Human Rights Commission.

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. 19].

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. 19].

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. 19].

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; 2004 SCC 23, refd to. [para. 19].

MacLean v. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al. (2003), 243 F.T.R. 219 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Grover, [2004] F.C. 704; 252 F.T.R. 244 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

Wang v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2005] F.C. 654; 272 F.T.R. 208 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

Gardner v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] F.C. 493; 250 F.T.R. 115 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

Singh (S.K.) v. Canada (Attorney General) (2001), 201 F.T.R. 226 (F.C.), affd. (2002), 291 N.R. 365 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Chopra v. Canada (Attorney General) (2002), 222 F.T.R. 236; 2002 FCT 787, refd to. [para. 20].

Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General) (1999), 238 N.R. 76 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Gee v. Minister of National Revenue (2002), 284 N.R. 321; 2002 FCA 4, refd to. [para. 20].

Tahmourpour v. Canada (Solicitor General) (2005), 332 N.R. 60; 2005 FCA 113, refd to. [para. 20].

Gardner v. Canada (Attorney General) (2005), 339 N.R. 91; 2005 FCA 284, refd to. [para. 20].

Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20; 144 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 22].

Larsh v. Canada (Attorney General) (1999), 166 F.T.R. 101 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 26].

Bourgeois v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al., [2000] N.R. Uned. 223 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Canadian Union of Public Employees et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 539; 304 N.R. 76; 173 O.A.C. 38; 2003 SCC 29, refd to. [para. 30].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Cherrier, [2005] F.T.R. Uned. 306; 2005 FC 505, refd to. [para. 30].

Marchand Syndics Inc. et al. v. Laperrière (2004), 272 F.T.R. 16; 2004 FC 1584, refd to. [para. 30].

Conseil de la magistrature (N.-B.) v. Moreau-Bérubé, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 249; 281 N.R. 201; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 201; 636 A.P.R. 201; 209 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 2002 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 31].

Moreau-Bérubé v. New Brunswick (Judicial Council) - see Conseil de la magistrature (N.-B.) v. Moreau-Bérubé.

Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners of Police and Ontario (Attorney General), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 311; 23 N.R. 410; 88 D.L.R.(3d) 671; 78 C.L.L.C. 14,181, refd to. [para. 32].

Martineau v. Matsqui Institution Disciplinary Board, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 602; 30 N.R. 119; 106 D.L.R.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 32].

Mercier v. Commission canadienne des droits de la personne, [1994] 3 F.C. 3; 167 N.R. 241 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Slattery v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, [1994] 2 F.C. 574; 73 F.T.R. 161 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 32].

Schut v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (1996), 120 F.T.R. 60 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 47].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22; 174 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 56].

Counsel:

Andrew Raven, for the applicant;

Anne Turley, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Raven, Allen, Cameron, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicant;

John H. Sims, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard on April 6, 2005, at Ottawa, Ontario, before de Montigny, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on September 21, 2005 and amended reasons for order on June 22, 2006.