HUMAN RIGHTS |
Gee v. M.N.R.
T-910-99
Muldoon J.
17/1/01
17 pp.
Application for judicial review of CHRC decision dismissing applicant's complaint of harassment, discrimination, abuse of authority, on basis of agreement reached between employer and applicant and complaint beyond jurisdiction of Commission as not based upon proscribed ground of discrimination--Application allowed--While human rights commissions should be afforded considerable deference in findings of fact (reasonableness): Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 554, in cases of errors of law or jurisdiction, standard of review correctness: Singh v. Canada (Statistics Canada), [2000] F.C.J. No. 417 (T.D.)--In finding agreement relevant consideration, Commission ignored case law indicating human rights legislation public policy out of which one cannot contract--Courts have gone so far as to say private parties not competent to contract out of such provisions--Also possible to argue agreement not honoured by respondent, and, therefore, not valid consideration in evidence--And by dismissing claim on basis of agreement, CHRC has effectively removed possibility applicant may seek redress for complaint by way of remedies which had been previously available--In situation like present, all other potential remedies no longer exist once dismissal from Commission rendered--By asserting agreement valid and enforceable, Commission addressed question of law beyond its jurisdiction and answered incorrectly--Furthermore, since Commission's letter of dismissal indicating no other evidence considered or pivotal in arriving at decision, documentation supporting contention once agreement made determinative, remaining evidence not carefully scrutinized in light of all circumstances--Such failure to exercise mandate indicative of reviewable error--No greater irrelevant or extraneous consideration could have been relied upon than agreement which should not, and legally cannot, exist.