Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

HUMAN RIGHTS

Judicial review of decision by Canadian Human Rights Commission appointing conciliator to attempt to settle salary discrimination complaintComplaint, based on Canadian Human Rights Act, s. 11 filed by Syndicat des communica-tions de Radio‑Canada (SCRC) against Canadian Broadcas-ting Corporation April 30, 1999SCRC alleged employment groups with majority of female staff represented by SCRC doing work equivalent to that done by primarily male compa-rison group but less well paidAs allegation one of systemic discrimination continuing over time, not filed out of time Question of whether delay since complaint filed inordinate and likely to offend communitys sense of fairness depends on nature of case, complexity of facts and issues, purpose and nature of proceedings, whether respondent contributed to or waived delay and other circumstances of caseStandard of review applicable to Commission decision pursuant to Act, s. 44 reasonableness of decisionCommissions function to determine whether, facts as a whole warranting inquiry by Canadian Human Rights TribunalRule of procedural fairness requiring Commission base itself on valid, objective evidence in determining whether evidence warrant creation of TribunalBased on what it appears Commission actually had available when it decided whether inquiry into complaint by Tribunal warranted, and regardless of whether or not it had available all information and documents provided by parties in course of investigation, unreasonable for Commission to conclude evidence sufficient to warrant referral of matter to Tribunal for inquiry Commissions conclusion inquiry into complaint by Tribunal warranted unreasonable and in itself valid reason for allowing application for judicial review at bar Application allowed Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. H‑6, ss. 11, 44 (am. by R.S.C., 1985 (1st Supp.), c. 31, s. 64; S.C. 1998, c. 9, s. 24).

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. Syndicat des communications de Radio‑Canada (FNC‑CSN) (T‑867‑04, 2005 FC 466, Shore J., order dated 12/4/05, 23 pp.)

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.