Syncrude Canada Ltd. v. Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (Alta.) et al., 2006 ABQB 603

• Judge: Chrumka, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: March 30, 2006
• Citations: 2006 ABQB 603;(2006), 405 A.R. 174 (QB)

Syncrude Can. v. HRC (2006), 405 A.R. 174 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] A.R. TBEd. SE.009

In The Matter Of the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A. 2000, C. H-14, as Amended

And In The Matter Of a Complaint before the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission, Complaint No. N2003/07/0132;

And In The Matter Of the Decision and Order of the Human Rights Panel, Undated, in Regards to Complaint No. N2003/07/0132;

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

(0613 010974; 2006 ABQB 603)

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

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Fort McMurray

Chrumka, J.

August 4, 2006.

Summary:

Wadhwa filed a human rights complaint against Casca Electric Ltd. and Syncrude Canada Ltd. The Chief Commissioner of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission appointed a human rights panel to deal with the complaint. Following a hearing on a preliminary issue, the Panel ruled that Syncrude was an employer within the meaning of s. 7 of the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, that Syncrude was an appropriate party to the proceeding and that the panel had jurisdiction over Syncrude. Syncrude appealed from that decision by an Originating Notice pursuant to s. 37(1) of the Act. The Director of the Commission applied for a dismissal of the Originating Notice on the ground that the Panel's decision was an interim jurisdictional ruling, which was not an "order" within the meaning of s. 37 of the Act.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench granted the Director's application.

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 - Wadhwa filed a human rights complaint against Casca Electric Ltd. and Syncrude Canada Ltd. - The Chief Commissioner of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission appointed a human rights panel to deal with the complaint - Following a hearing on a preliminary issue, the Panel ruled that Syncrude was an employer within the meaning of s. 7 of the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, that Syncrude was an appropriate party to the proceeding and that the panel had jurisdiction over Syncrude - Syncrude appealed from that decision by an Originating Notice pursuant to s. 37(1) of the Act - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench granted an application to dismiss the Originating Notice - The court applied the modern principle of statutory interpretation and held that the word "order" in s. 37 of the Act referred to a final decision as contemplated by s. 32 - The decision in issue was best characterized as an interim or interlocutory one in the sense that the merits of the complaint remained to be determined - It was not subject to appeal under s. 37(1) - See paragraphs 16 to 32.

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 ].

Statutes - Topic 2601

Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - Modern rule (incl. interpretation by context) - General principles - [See Civil Rights - Topic 7117 ].

Words and Phrases

Order - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench considered the meaning of the word "order" in s. 37(1) of the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. H-14 - See paragraphs 23 to 27.

Cases Noticed:

Edmonton (City) v. Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (Alta.) et al. (2002), 329 A.R. 172; 10 Alta. L.R.(4th) 140; 2002 ABQB 1013, refd to. [para. 16].

Partington v. Complaints Inquiry Committee (2005), 371 A.R. 38; 354 W.A.C. 38; 2005 ABCA 232, refd to. [para. 16].

Canadian Pacific Airlines Ltd. et al. v. Canadian Air Line Pilots Association et al., [1988] 2 F.C. 493; 84 N.R. 81 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1988] 1 S.C.R. vii, refd to. [para. 16].

Setter Brothers Inc. v. Light, [1954] Ex. CR. 169, refd to. [para. 16].

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. 16].

Mental Health Board (Alta.) v. Martin et al., 2001 CarswellAlta 1888 (Q.B.), affd. (2003), 327 A.R. 366; 296 W.A.C. 366; 16 Alta. L.R.(4th) 205; 2003 ABCA 127, leave to appeal refused [2004] 1 S.C.R. xi; 329 N.R. 389; 363 A.R. 199; 343 W.A.C. 199, refd to. [para. 17].

ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Energy and Utilities Board (Alta.), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 140; 344 N.R. 293; 380 A.R. 1; 363 W.A.C. 1; 2006 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 19].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 20].

Proprietary Industries Inc. v. Workum et al., [2005] A.R. Uned. 542; 49 Alta. L.R.(4th) 397; 2005 ABQB 472, refd to. [para. 22].

Hendrickson v. Kallio, [1932] O.R. 675 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Chieu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 84; 280 N.R. 268; 2002 SCC 3, refd to. [para. 23].

Human Rights Commission (Ont.) and Bates v. Zurich Insurance Co., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 321; 138 N.R. 1; 55 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 26].

Human Rights Commission (Ont.) v. A et al., [2002] 3 S.C.R. 403; 294 N.R. 140; 166 O.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 66, refd to. [para. 26].

Economic Development Edmonton v. Wong et al. (2005), 371 A.R. 362; 354 W.A.C. 362; 2005 ABCA 278, refd to. [para. 26].

Stirrat Laboratories Ltd. v. Health Sciences Association (Alta.) (1996), 1 Admin. L.R.(3d) 200 (Alta. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 26].

Litchfield v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (Alta.) (2005), 390 A.R. 126; 2005 ABQB 962, refd to. [para. 33].

Statutes Noticed:

Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. H-14, sect. 37 [para. 13].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 19].

Jones, David Phillip, and de Villars, Anne S., Principles of Administrative Law (4th Ed. 2004), pp. 134, 135 [para. 21].

Mullan, David J., Administrative Law (2001), pp. 462 to 464 [para. 18].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (4th Ed. 2002), p. 249 [para. 20].

Counsel:

Donald J. Wilson (Davis & Company LLP), for the applicant;

Arman M. Chak, for the respondent, Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission.

This application was heard on March 30, 2006, before Chrumka, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Fort McMurray, who delivered the following memorandum of decision on August 4, 2006.