Pilotes du Bas St. Laurent, S.E.N.C. v. Bouchard et al., 2004 FC 1776

• Judge: Blanchard, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 27, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2004 FC 1776;(2004), 277 F.T.R. 10 (FC)

St. Lawrence Pilots v. Bouchard (2004), 277 F.T.R. 10 (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: [2005] F.T.R. TBEd. JA.019

Les pilotes du Bas St. Laurent, S.E.N.C. (demandeur) v. Jean Bouchard et le Procureur général du Canada (défendeurs) et la Commission canadienne des droits de la personne (intervenante) (T-912-03)

Les pilotes du Bas St. Laurent (demandeur) v. Jean Bouchard et le Procureur général du Canada (défendeurs) et la Commission canadienne des droits de la personne (intervenante)

(T-913-03)

(2004 CF 1776; 2004 FC 1776)

Indexed As: Pilotes du Bas St. Laurent, S.E.N.C. v. Bouchard et al.

Federal Court

Blanchard, J.

December 23, 2004.

Summary:

Bouchard, a pilot, filed complaints against the Pilotes du Bas St. Laurent and Pilotes du Bas St. Laurent, S.E.N.C. (the applicants), under the Canadian Human Rights Act, alleging that the applicants had discriminated against him under an internal rule that once a pilot reached the age of 60, he was no longer authorized to carry on the duties of a docking pilot in the port of Quebec. The Canadian Human Rights Commission held that it had jurisdiction to hear the complaints, considering them admissible under ss. 5, 7, 9 and 10 of the Act. The applicants applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court dismissed the applications.

Civil Rights - Topic 7069

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Commissions or boards - Jurisdiction - Complaints - General - Bouchard filed complaints against the Pilotes du Bas St. Laurent and Pilotes du Bas St. Laurent, S.E.N.C. (the applicants), under the Canadian Human Rights Act, alleging that the applicants had discriminated against him on the basis of age - The Canadian Human Rights Commission held that it had jurisdiction to hear the complaints, considering them admissible under ss. 5, 7, 9 and 10 of the Act - The applicants applied for judicial review - The Federal Court dismissed the applications - The impugned decisions were made at a preliminary stage, in the exercise of substantial discretion enjoyed by the Commission under s. 41(1) of the Act - The Commission had to deal with the complaint unless it concluded that it did not fall within its jurisdiction (s. 41(1)(c)) - When a question of jurisdiction was at issue at the preliminary stage of the determination made under s. 41(1), the court could intervene to set aside the decision only where it was "clear and beyond doubt that the Tribunal is without jurisdiction to deal with the matter before it" - That was not the case.

Civil Rights - Topic 7115

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Practice - Judicial review (incl. standard of review) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 7069 ].

Cases Noticed:

University of British Columbia v. Berg, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 353; 152 N.R. 99; 26 B.C.A.C. 241; 44 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 23].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Rosin (C.A.), [1991] F.C. 391, refd to. [para. 23].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Canadian Human Rights Commission and Fontaine, [1991] 1 F.C. 571; 120 N.R. 152 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Cormier v. Human Rights Commission (Alta.) (1984), 64 A.R. 65; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 359 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 28].

Robichaud v. Canada (Treasury Board) - see Brennan v. Canada and Robichaud.

Brennan v. Canada and Robichaud, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 84; 75 N.R. 303, refd to. [para. 28].

Pointe-Claire (Ville) v. Syndicat des employées et l'employés professionnels -les det de bureau, section locale 57 (S.E.P.B. - U.I.E.P.B. - C.T.C. - F.T.Q.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 1015; 211 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 28].

Canadian Association of Trades and Technicians (C.A.T.T.) v. Canada (Treasury Board) et al., [1992] 2 F.C. 533; 140 N.R. 151 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

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. 33].

Canada Post Corp. v. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al. (1997), 130 F.T.R. 241 (T.D.), affd. (1999), 245 N.R. 397 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Brine v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (1999), 175 F.T.R. 1 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 40].

Holmes v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (1999), 242 N.R. 148 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Bell Canada v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada et al., [1991] 1 F.C. 113; 233 N.R. 87 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Slattery v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, [1994] F.C.J. No. 1017, refd to. [para. 42].

Canada v. Bouvier, [1996] F.C.J. No. 623 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 42].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Cumming, [1980] 2 F.C. 122 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 42].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6, sect. 41(1) [para. 38].

Counsel:

Pierre Cimon, for the applicant;

Yann Duguay, for the respondent, Bouchard;

Johanne Boudreau, for the respondent, Attorney General of Canada;

Philippe Dufresne, for the intervenor.

Solicitors of Record:

Pierre Cimon, Ogilvy Renault, Quebec, Quebec, for the applicant;

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent.

These applications were heard on October 27, 2004, at Quebec, Quebec, by Blanchard, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment on December 23, 2004.