HUMAN RIGHTS |
Lindo v. Royal Bank of Canada
T-931-98
Gibson J.
21/6/00
14 pp.
Judicial review of CHR Commission's dismissal of applicant's complaint alleging discrimination based on age, colour--Decision indicating "evidence does not support" allegations of discrimination based on age, derogatory comments by manager about complainant's sex, colour, regarding performance appraisal (i.e. unfair, biased) and forced early retirement--Issues: standard of review of Commission's decision, whether Commission erred in decision--Decision under review administrative, applicant's interests affected--Duty of procedural fairness applies--Criteria in determining procedural rights: nature of decision, process followed; statutory scheme; importance of decision to individual affected; legitimate expectations of person challenging decision; choices of procedure made by decision-making body--Duty of fairness required of Commission in respect of such decisions reasonably limited--Investigation must be fair, thorough, reflect neutrality--Investigative report must be provided to parties before transmitted to Commission, parties must be given reasonable opportunity to comment in writing on investigative report--Any comments submitted must be transmitted to Commission for consideration in conjunction with investigative report itself--Standard of review applied to questions of law involved in Commission's decision correctness--Standard of review on question of fact or interpretation of totality of material before Commission against applicable law reasonableness--On facts, duty of fairness met--As applicant's concern investigation not extending to interview of one witness whose evidence applicant regarded as critical before Commission when reviewed investigation report, Commission must have considered and dismissed concern--Such action open to Commission, given broad discretion in arriving at decision under review--Applicant submitting reasons reflecting fact Commission denied procedural fairness, erred in law in improperly assessing credibility without benefit of hearing--In Larsh v. Canada (Attorney General) (1999), 166 F.T.R. 101 (F.C.T.D.), Evans J. holding Commission's use of "no evidence" not meaning Commission disbelieving complainant, thus making adverse finding of credibility, but that Commission not satisfied any evidence on which Tribunal could reasonably decide on balance of probabilities that complainant's allegations true--Same can be said of Commission's use of "evidence does not support the allegation" herein--Against standard of reasonableness, Commission not erring in evaluation of totality of material before it--Applicant's concerns before Commission and no basis on which to conclude Commission ignored applicant's concerns or gave them insufficient consideration--Application dismissed.