Syncrude Canada Ltd. v. Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (Alta.) et al., (2008) 432 A.R. 333 (CA)

• Judge: Berger, Martin and Rowbotham, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: January 10, 2008
• Citations: (2008), 432 A.R. 333 (CA);2008 ABCA 217

Syncrude Can. Ltd. v. HRC (2008), 432 A.R. 333 (CA);

      424 W.A.C. 333

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] A.R. TBEd. JN.018

Syncrude Canada Ltd. (appellant/applicant) v. The Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission and Devinder Wadhwa (respondents/respondents)

(0603-0327-AC; 2008 ABCA 217)

Indexed As: Syncrude Canada Ltd. v. Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (Alta.) et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Berger, Martin and Rowbotham, JJ.A.

June 10, 2008.

Summary:

A human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment practices was filed against Syncrude Canada Ltd. A human rights panel was convened. Syncrude challenged the panel's jurisdiction on the basis that Syncrude's subcontractor was the complainant's employer within the meaning of s. 7 of the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act and, accordingly, Syncrude was not a proper party to the proceedings. The panel conducted a preliminary hearing on the issue and found that Syncrude was an appropriate party to the proceedings. Syncrude filed an originating notice appealing that decision pursuant to s. 37(1) of the Act. The Director of the Commission applied to dismiss the originating notice on the basis of prematurity.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 405 A.R. 174, granted the Director's application. The court concluded that the panel's decision was not a final order and was not subject to appeal under s. 37(1) of the Act. Syncrude appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 6106

Judicial review - Statutory appeal - Final order or decision - What constitutes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 7117 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7117

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Practice - Appeals - A complaint alleging discrimination in employment practices was filed against Syncrude Canada Ltd. - A human rights panel was convened - Syncrude challenged the panel's jurisdiction on the basis that Syncrude's subcontractor was the complainant's employer within the meaning of s. 7 of the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act and, accordingly, Syncrude was not a proper party to the proceedings - The panel conducted a preliminary hearing on the issue and found that Syncrude was an appropriate party to the proceedings - Syncrude filed an originating notice appealing that decision pursuant to s. 37(1) of the Act - A chambers judge granted an application to dismiss the originating notice on the basis of prematurity - The chambers judge held that the panel's decision was not a final order and was not subject to appeal under s. 37(1) of the Act - The chambers judge held that the word "order" in s. 37(1) referred only to a final decision as contemplated by s. 32 - Syncrude appealed - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Practice - Topic 5467

Judgments and orders - Finality of judgments and orders - Judgments and orders subject to appeal - [See Civil Rights - Topic 7117 ].

Practice - Topic 5729

Judgments and orders - Final judgments and orders - What constitute - [See Civil Rights - Topic 7117 ].

Practice - Topic 5779

Judgments and orders - Interlocutory or interim orders or judgments - What constitutes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 7117 ].

Cases Noticed:

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, refd to. [para. 4].

ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Energy and Utilities Board (Alta.), [2005] A.R. Uned. 107; 48 Alta. L.R.(4th) 1; 2005 ABCA 226, refd to. [para. 4].

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

Thomson v. Canada (Minister of Agriculture), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 385; 133 N.R. 345, refd to. [para. 4].

Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, [1968] A.C. 997 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 4].

Paramount Energy Operating Corp. et al. v. Energy and Utilities Board (Alta.) (2004), 354 A.R. 375; 329 W.A.C. 375; 2004 ABCA 273, refd to. [para. 8].

Workum v. Alberta Securities Commission et al., [2006] A.R. Uned. 875; 2006 ABCA 181, refd to. [para. 8].

Roosma and Weller et al. v. Ford Motor Co. of Canada Ltd. et al. (1988), 29 O.A.C. 84 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 12].

Statutes Noticed:

Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. H-14, sect. 32, sect. 37(1), sect. 37(4) [para. 3].

Counsel:

B.B. Johnston, for the appellant/applicant;

A.M. Chak, for the respondents/respondents.

This appeal was heard on January 10, 2008, before Berger, Martin and Rowbotham, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The following reasons for judgment of the Court of Appeal were delivered by Berger, J.A., on June 10, 2008.