Mohammed v. Canada ( Treasury Board )
T-1328-97
Cullen J.
16/6/98
16 pp.
Judicial review of Adjudicator's refusal to exercise jurisdiction to hear applicant's grievance-Applicant, Muslim woman and visible minority, employed with Immigration and Refugee Board-Grievance alleging two e-mails violated "no discrimination" clause of collective agreement, causing illness, commenced pursuant to Public Service Staff Relations Act (PSSRA), s. 91(1)-Citing Chopra v. Treasury Board (Canada), [1995] 3 F.C. 445 (T.D.) wherein held adjudicator lacking jurisdiction to hear complaints of discrimination falling within purview of Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) as providing "redress" as stated in s. 91(1), Adjudicator determining lacked jurisdiction to hear grievance because allegations of racial, religious discrimination also constituting grounds for complaint under Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA), providing both right of redress and remedy in respect of these matters-S. 91(1) permitting grievance concerning matter in respect of which no administrative procedure for redress provided in or under Act of Parliament-Applicant submitting procedures provided in CHRA to deal with human rights complaints not "redress" as envisioned by PSSRA-Pointing to differences between aspects of CHRA complaint-based process and grievance adjudication, applicant arguing Chopra in error to extent Court concluding discrimination-based grievances can be dealt with meaningfully, effectively through CHRA complaint-based process-Application dismissed-Ss. 91(1), 92(1) only allowing matters related to interpretation, application of collective agreement, arbitral award to be adjudicated-Parliament limiting jurisdiction of PSSRA adjudicators, rather than granting them exclusive jurisdiction to hear any and all grievances-Applicant citing Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; St. Anne Nackawic Pulp and Paper Co. v. Canadian Paper Workers Union, Local 219, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 704 in which held disputes arising out of collective agreement must be handled through dispute resolution process contained in collective agreement, governing legislation-In both cases, Court faced with mandatory arbitration clauses granting exclusive jurisdiction to labour tribunal-Question whether procedures under CHRA constituting "redress"-Administrative procedure for redress referred to in s. 91(1) need not be identical to grievance procedure mandated by PSSRA: Bayers Transport v. Kosanovich, [1995] 3 F.C. 354 (C.A.)-Remedies given in two procedures need not be identical; rather party should be able to obtain "real redress" of benefit to complainant-S. 91(1) requiring existence of another procedure for redress, where redress available under that procedure of some personal benefit to complainant-Applicant's arguments procedure must involve union, and procedure must provide identical redress failed-CHRA, s. 3 prohibiting discrimination on basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour and religion-S. 53 setting out remedial powers available in event complaint substantiated-While not identical, CHRA does provide "redress" to applicant's complaint-No interpretation of collective agreement required beyond that which CHRA encompassing-Public Service Staff Relations Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-35, s. 91(1)-Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6, ss. 3 (as am. by S.C. 1996, c. 14, s. 2), 53.