Syndicat des employés de production du Québec et de l'Acadie v. Commission Canadienne des droits de la personne et al., (1989) 100 N.R. 241 (SCC)

• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé and Sopinka, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 02, 1989
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1989), 100 N.R. 241 (SCC);11 CHRR 1;17 ACWS (3d) 479;1989 CanLII 44 (SCC);62 DLR (4th) 385;100 NR 241;[1989] ACS no 103;[1989] 2 SCR 879;[1989] SCJ No 103 (QL)

Syndicat des employés v. CHRC (1989), 100 N.R. 241 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Syndicat des employés de production du Québec et de l'Acadie (appellant) v. Canadian Human Rights Commission (respondent) and Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Attorney General of Canada (mis-en-cause)

(20181)

Indexed As: Syndicat des employés de production du Québec et de l'Acadie v. Commission Canadienne des droits de la personne et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé and Sopinka, JJ.

October 12, 1989.

Summary:

A union representing Canadian Broadcasting Corporation production workers complained to the Canadian Human Rights Commission under the equal pay for work of equal value provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act (s. 11). An investigator was appointed and prepared a report recommending that the complaint be dismissed by the Commission. The union was given an opportunity to make written submissions to the Commission. The Commission dismissed the complaint as being unsubstantiated (s. 36(3)(b)). The union applied to quash the decision under s. 28 of the Federal Court Act.

The Federal Court of Appeal, in a decision reported, 90 N.R. 16, dismissed the application. The union appealed raising the issues of whether the Commission's decision respecting the complaint had to be made on a judicial or quasi-judicial basis such that the decision was reviewable within the meaning of s. 28 of the Federal Court Act, and if so, did the Commission commit a reviewable error.

The Supreme Court of Canada, L'Heureux-Dubé and Wilson, JJ., dissenting, dismissed the appeal and dealt with the issues accordingly.

Administrative Law - Topic 1004

Classification of power or function - Necessity for classification - The Federal Court Act, s. 28, gave the Federal Court of Appeal jurisdiction to review decisions of federal boards, commissions or other tribunals, "other than a decision or order of an administrative nature not required by law to be made on a judicial or quasi-judicial basis" - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that s. 28 compels the classification of decisions of federal boards, commissions and other tribunals into judicial, quasi-judicial, administrative or executive categories - See paragraph 19.

Administrative Law - Topic 1074

Classification of power or function - Powers or functions classified as administrative - Dismissal of complaints by human rights commissions - The Federal Court Act, s. 28, gave the Federal Court of Appeal jurisdiction to review decisions of federal boards, commissions or other tribunals, "other than a decision or order of an administrative nature not required by law to be made on a judicial or quasi-judicial basis" - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Federal Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction under s. 28 to review a decision by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to dismiss a complaint under s. 36(3)(b) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, because the decision was not required by law to be made on a judicial or quasi-judicial basis - Rather, the decision was an administrative one, requiring only procedural fairness, not compliance with the formal rules of natural justice - See paragraphs 1 to 31, 37.

Administrative Law - Topic 2143

Natural justice - Administrative decisions or findings - Duty of administrative bodies to act fairly and observe the rules of natural justice - [See Administrative Law - Topic 1074 above].

Administrative Law - Topic 2264

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - When required - [See Administrative Law - Topic 1074 above].

Administrative Law - Topic 2266

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - Procedural fairness - What constitutes - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the procedural requirements which must be observed by the Canadian Human Rights Commission in dismissing a complaint as unsubstantiated under s. 36(3)(b) of the Canadian Human Rights Act - See paragraphs 32 to 36, 85 to 117.

Civil Rights - Topic 7002

Federal or provincial legislation - Nature of proceedings under human rights legislation - [See Administrative Law - Topic 1074 above].

Civil Rights - Topic 7109

Federal legislation - Practice - Procedure - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2266 above].

Courts - Topic 4095

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court of Appeal - Administrative functions exercised on a judicial or quasi-judicial basis - [See Administrative Law - Topic 1074 above].

Cases Noticed:

Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners of Police and Attorney General of Ontario, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 311; 23 N.R. 410; 88 D.L.R.(3d) 671, refd to. [paras. 19, 26, 39, 41].

Bates v. Lord Hailsham, [1972] 1 W.L.R. 1373 (Ch. D.), refd to. [para. 19].

Martineau v. Matsqui Institution Disciplinary Board, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 602; 30 N.R. 119; 106 D.L.R.(3d) 385, refd to. [paras. 19, 20].

Singh et al. v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; 58 N.R. 1; 17 D.L.R.(4th) 422; 14 C.R.R. 13; 12 Admin. L.R. 137, refd to. [paras. 19, 40].

Selvarajan v. Race Relations Board, [1976] 1 All E.R. 12 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Dagg and Ontario Human Rights Commission, Re (1979), 102 D.L.R.(3d) 155, refd to. [para. 27].

Radulesco v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 407; 55 N.R. 384, refd to. [paras. 28, 69, 70, 104, 115].

Cashin v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1984] 2 F.C. 209; 55 N.R. 112, refd to. [paras. 29, 64, 67, 68].

Downing and Graydon, Re (1978), 92 D.L.R.(3d) 355, refd to. [paras. 30, 35, 101, 102, 115].

Northwestern Utilities Ltd. v. City of Edmonton, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 684; 23 N.R. 565, refd to. [para. 34].

Blanchard v. Control Data Canada Ltd., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 476; 55 N.R. 194, refd to. [para. 34].

MacDonald Tobacco Inc. v. Canada Employment and Immigration and Government of Canada, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 401; 36 N.R. 519, refd to. [para. 39].

Coopers and Lybrand v. Minister of National Revenue, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 495; 24 N.R. 163, refd to. [paras. 41, 44, 61].

Brouillette v. Canadian Human Rights Commission (1986), 86 N.R. 393, refd to. [paras. 42, 70].

Labelle v. Canada (Treasury Board) (1987), 76 N.R. 222, refd to. [para. 42].

Whiteman v. Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) (1987), 9 C.H.R.R. D/4944, refd to. [paras. 42, 70].

Udeco Inc. v. Quebec, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 502; 55 N.R. 360, refd to. [paras. 43, 45].

Labour Relations Board of Saskatchewan v. John East Iron Works Ltd., [1949] A.C. 134, refd to. [para. 45].

MacBain v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, [1985] 1 F.C. 856; 62 N.R. 117, refd to. [paras. 52, 68, 71, 72].

Actions Travail des Femmes v. Canadian National Railway Company et al., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1114; 76 N.R. 169, refd to. [paras. 57, 79].

Canadian National Railway Co. v. Canadian Human Rights Commission - see Actions Travail des Femmes v. Canadian National Railway Company et al.

Brennan v. Canada and Robichaud, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 84; 75 N.R. 303, refd to. [paras. 57, 79, 80].

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

Latif v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, [1980] 1 F.C. 687; 28 N.R. 494 (F.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 58, 62, 67].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255, refd to. [para. 79].

Corning Glass Works v. Brennan (1974), 417 U.S. 188, refd to. [paras. 82, 90].

Waddington v. Leicester Council for Voluntary Services, [1977] 2 All E.R. 633 (E.A.T.), refd to. [para. 82].

Harmatiuk v. Pasqua Hospital (1982), 4 C.H.R.R. D/1177, affd. (1983), 26 Sask.R. 158; 4 C.H.R.R. D/1650 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 92].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Human Rights Act, S.C. 1976-77, c. 33, sect. 7, sect. 10 [paras. 80, 81]; sect. 11 [para. 2 et seq.]; sect. 14(a) [para. 67]; sect. 22(2) [para. 103]; sect. 26 [para. 13]; sect. 32 [paras. 13, 23]; sect. 32(5) [para. 47]; sect. 33 [paras. 13, 27, 58]; sect. 33(b) [para. 47]; sect. 34 [para. 13]; sect. 35 [paras. 3, 13, 23]; sect. 36 [paras. 13, 23, 24, 50]; sect. 36(2) [para. 48]; sect. 36(3) [para. 1 et seq.]; sect. 36(3)(a) [para. 26]; sect. 36(3)(b) [para. 26 et seq.]; sect. 36(4) [para. 62]; sect. 39 [paras. 23, 25]; sect. 39(1) [paras. 13, 64]; sect. 40 [para. 13]; sect. 40(1) [para. 63]; sect. 40(2) [para. 23]; sect. 41 [paras. 51, 52, 59]; sect. 65 [para. 48].

Equal Wages Guidelines, SI/78-155, generally [paras. 39, 86-103], sect. 3 [para. 89].

Equal Wages Guidelines, amendment, SI/82-2 [para. 86].

Equal Wages Guidelines, SOR/86-1082, sect. 16 [para. 86].

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10, sect. 18 [paras. 13, 19]; sect. 28 [para. 1 et seq.].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Abella, Rosalie A., Report of the Commission on Equality in Employment (1984), pp. 244 [para. 91]; 250 [para. 96].

Blumrosen, Ruth G., Wage Discrimination, Job Segregation, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (1979), 12 U. Mich. J.L. Ref. 397, pp. 436, 437 [para. 97].

Canada, Law Reform Commission of Canada, Federal Court: Judicial Review (Working Paper 18) (1977), pp. 35, 36 [para. 41].

de Smith, S.A., Judicial Review of Administrative Action (4th Ed. 1980), pp. 81, 82, 85 [para. 46].

Nelson, Bruce A., Edward M. Upton and Thomas A. Wilson, Wage Discrimination and the "Comparable Worth" Theory in Perspective (1980), 13 U. Mich. J.L. Ref. 233, p. 255 [para. 97].

Pépin, Gilles et Yves Ouellette, Principes de contentieux administratif (2nd Ed. 1982), pp. 144 [para. 41]; 154-176 [para. 43].

Tarnopolsky, Walter S., Discrimination and the Law in Canada (2nd Ed. 1982), pp. 30-31 [para. 22]; 417 [para. 82].

Counsel:

Luc Martineau and Lyne Robichaud, for the appellant;

Russell G. Juriansz and Anne Trottier, for the respondent;

Gaspard Côté, Q.C., and Raymond Piché, for the mis-en-cause.

Solicitors of Record:

Robert, Dansereau, Barré, Marchessault and Lauzon, Montréal, Quebec, for the appellant;

Russell G. Juriansz and Anne Trottier, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent;

Gaspard Côté and Raymond Piché, Montréal, Quebec, for the mis-en-cause.

This appeal was heard on February 2, 1989, before Dickson, C.J.C., McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé and Sopinka, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The judgment of the Supreme Court was rendered in both official languages on October 12, 1989, including the following opinions:

Sopinka, J. (Lamer and La Forest, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 36;

Dickson, C.J.C. (partially concurring reasons) - see paragraph 37;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting (Wilson, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 38 to 117.

McIntyre, J., took no part in the judgment.