Gittel v. Air Atlantic ( 1995 ) Ltd.
T-2361-96
MacKay J.
20/11/98
15 pp.
Application for order quashing CHRC decision refusing to refer applicant's complaint to tribunal for inquiry, and closing file, in effect dismissing complaint-Applicant employed as captain of aircraft for respondent airline from 1987 to 1995-First complaint in 1993 following demotion to first officer for period of 25 months alleged discriminatory treatment based on employer's perception applicant mentally unstable-Complaint dismissed in February 1995-On following day, applicant's employment terminated as respondent no longer considered him competent, and no longer had confidence in his ability, to fly as pilot for Air Atlantic-Failure to follow standard procedures in aborting take-off in December 1994 given as basic reason for dismissal in letter of dismissal-In March 1995, applicant filed second complaint with CHRC, alleging discrimination based on perceived mental instability-Applicant alleged that in 1990, following death of applicant's father in aircraft accident, similar to earlier death of applicant's brother, applicant's supervisor started questioning applicant's mental stability, asserting he posed risk as airline captain-Investigator found in favour of applicant and recommended conciliator be appointed to attempt to settle complaint against respondent-Conciliation efforts unsuccessful-CHRC Director of Compliance report following conciliation failure recommended either referral to tribunal or that referral unwarranted and file be closed-Both parties submitted comments concerning report-In August 1996, CHRC Acting General Counsel advised efforts to conciliate had failed and recommended case be sent to tribunal for determination-Second complaint dismissed-Applicant's principal argument herein CHRC failed to observe principle of natural justice, and to provide procedural fairness when, prior to rendering decision, it failed to provide applicant with copy of representations made by letter on behalf of respondent, and opportunity to comment upon them-Applicant also argued CHRC based decision on erroneous finding of fact made in perverse or capricious manner-Application dismissed-No basis to intervene on ground of error of fact in Commission's decision-Courts have routinely held Commission has broad discretion to dismiss complaint and to close file-Where submissions of one party do more than provide interpretation of facts before CHRC, if they affect content of evidence before that body, submissions should be disclosed-Herein, however, letter referred to, while it urged that certain evidence earlier submitted by applicant be disregarded by CHRC, evidence which applicant considered relevant to his case, no evidence action proposed in letter was followed-Commission therefore not obliged to disclose to applicant letter referred to, written on behalf of respondent, before complaint dismissed-Requirements of procedural fairness met.