Canada Post Corp. v. Canada ( Human Rights Commission )
T-2788-94
Rothstein J.
8/5/97
17 pp.
Application to quash Canadian Human Rights Commission's decision to deal with 1992 complaint respecting pay equity-Canadian Human Rights Act, s. 41 requiring Commission to deal with complaint unless appears to Commission (a) alleged victim of discriminatory practice ought to exhaust grievance or review procedures otherwise reasonably available, or (d) complaint trivial, frivolous, vexatious, made in bad faith-Pay equity complaint filed in 1982-In 1985 parties agreeing pay equity issue should be resolved by agreement or arbitration-Pay equity aspects of 1985 agreement included in subsequent collective agreements in effect when 1992 complaint filed-Applicant submitting Canadian Postmasters and Assistants Association (CPAA) ought to have exhausted grievance, review procedures available under 1985 agreement-Also submitting 1992 complaint made in bad faith as CPAA agreed in 1985 agreement to withdraw 1982 complaint, received consideration for doing so, agreed to establish alternative process to deal with pay equity-Commission dismissing complaint in 1991-Application dismissed-If not plain, obvious to Commission complaint falling under grounds in s. 41 for not dealing with it, Commission should, with dispatch, proceed to deal with it-No dispute alternative procedure reasonably available when complaint filed-Whether ought to have been exhausted discretionary decision-Question of bad faith one of mixed law, fact-Judicial review of both decisions constrained by narrow scope for review mandated by s. 41, approaches outlined in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Williams, [1997] 2 F.C. 646 (C.A.); Attorney General of Canada v. Cumming, [1980] 2 F.C. 122 (T.D.)-As to alternative procedures available, Commission's decision stating no other review procedures currently available to complainant more appropriate than complaint process-Appropriateness of alternative relevant factor for discretionary decision Commission required to make-Commission expressing concern about timeliness-Timeliness relevant consideration-No justification to interfere with Commission's exercise of discretion as not taking account of irrelevant considerations, failing to take account of relevant ones, or bad faith-As to bad faith, Commission not ignoring evidence in concluding CPAA not acting in bad faith-No indication CPAA reserving right to pursue 1982 complaint or right to file new complaints-If anything, comprehensiveness of CPAA's expression of satisfaction in 1985 agreement and attempted withdrawal of 1982 complaint suggesting opposite-Having regard to these considerations Court's conclusion respecting bad faith may have been different than Commission's, but this information before Commission, considered by it-Act, s. 48 providing any settlement must be referred to Commission for approval, rejection-Both parties deemed to know law-CPAA could not have known Commission would continue investigation-No bad faith on this account-In view of prohibition against contracting out of Canadian Human Rights Act, Commission would have to proceed with utmost caution before dismissing complaint on this ground at early stage-Commission allowing itself to participate in extraordinary delay of matter arising 15 years ago-That Commission's resources stretched thin not satisfactory explanation for time elapsed-Where tribunal vested with such broad powers as Commission, concomitant duty to exercise powers responsibly-Responsible exercise of powers including timely exercise-Commission seemingly losing sight of importance of timeliness in resolving complaints-Keeping complaint alive while not taking any active steps to require parties to bring it to resolution-Begging question as to why Commission not efficiently monitoring parties' progress under 1985 agreement with effective case management or dealing with matter itself when concluded progress unsatisfactory-Commission must manage complaints in efficient, competent manner, including moving them forward on timely basis-Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6, ss. 41, 48.