HUMAN RIGHTS |
Canada (Attorney General) v. Grover
T-1923-03
2004 FC 704, Harrington J.
14/5/04
20 pp.
Following numbers: H30947, H32471, H32637 and H47999 assigned by Canadian Human Rights Commission (Commission) to four complaints of racial discrimination, levied by Dr. Grover against employer, National Research Council (NRC)--Commission referred first complaint to Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (Tribunal) for inquiry-- Tribunal found Dr. Grover discriminated against contrary to Canadian Human Rights Act (Act)--Commission dismissed next two complaints, H32471 and H32637--Dr. Grover successful in obtaining review of that decision on ground key witness (Dr. Vanier) not interviewed, i.e. breach of procedural fairness by not carrying out thorough, neutral evaluation--By then, Dr. Grover had filed complaint H47999--Commission decided to refer complaints H32471 and H32637 to Tribunal for inquiry--Commission not detailing circumstances which satisfied it that inquiry into complaints H32471, H32637 warranted, but investigator's report circulated and may be taken as setting out Commission's reasons--Dr. Vanier, who had control over Dr. Grover's work, interviewed following Motions Judge's decision--Although Tribunal had not completed investigation of complaint H47999, it joined it to other two complaints on grounds all three involved substantially same issues of fact and law--Now, NRC seeking judicial review of that decision and order directing Commission to provide sufficient reasons for decision--If Commission decides to conduct inquiry, inquiry must be both neutral and thorough--Act not requiring Commission to give reasons--However, procedural fairness requires reasons be given--If Commission concerned still aura of partiality, notwithstanding that Dr. Vanier interviewed, that concern misplaced--NRC entitled to know if Commission changed its mind and, if so, why--If Commission thought it could not, and should not, assess Dr. Vanier's credibility because found wanting once before by Tribunal, it was clearly wrong in law --Although Dr. Grover has not sought judicial review despite request investigation into three complaints be stayed pending outcome of Ontario Superior Court of Justice action, decision to cut short investigation process most peculiar--Obligation on part of Commission to investigate fourth complaint before deciding either to refer it to Tribunal or to dismiss it-- Improper for Commission to be concerned about any possible adverse comment on its effectiveness by Ontario Superior Court of Justice--That there are parallel proceedings is Dr. Grover's doing, not Commission's--Insufficient reasons given to support decision with respect to complaints H30947 and H32637--As investigation into complaint H47999 incomplete, Commission could not have been satisfied referral to Tribunal warranted and that it should be joined to other two complaints--Application allowed--Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6.