Canada ( Attorney General ) v. Canada ( President, Human Rights Tribunal )
T-1875-92
Reed J.
8/3/94
22 pp.
Judicial review-Legitimate expectation-Role of CHRC in judicial review proceedings-Application seeking orders quashing two decisions of CHRC sending two complaints for full inquiry-Respondents alleging refusal by Department of Health and Welfare to make family allowance cheques payable to male complainants discrimination on basis of sex-Family Allowances Act, s. 7(1) provided family allowance benefits payable in respect of child, would be paid to female parent except where Regulations provided otherwise-In 1989, Regulations provided cheques payable to male parent if had custody of child, if agreement existed between parents or if Minister determined special circumstances-Payment of family allowance benefits discontinued in 1993; replaced by child tax credit system-Complaints of respondents referred by CHRC to Tribunal pursuant to Canadian Human Rights Act, ss. 44(3)(a) and 49-Applicant arguing decision of CHRC to refer complaints to Tribunal, made without regard to rules of natural justice, particularly doctrine of legitimate expectations and unreasonable-Government decision to discontinue family allowance benefits made long time before CHRC decided to mount full scale inquiry-Results of inquiry would have no impact, scheme having been abolished-Existence of general duty of fairness depending on nature of decision to be made by administrative body, relationship existing between body and party in question and effect of decision on individual rights-Alleged discrimination related to operation of government program of general application and involved distribution of significant sums of money-Changes to way program operated including amendments to relevant regulations had been made by Department at CHRC's request; Department then operated program in reliance on agreement-Applicant relied upon agreement which had previously been reached and asked CHRC to communicate further with Department if CHRC resiling from agreement; CHRC had obligation to do so as matter of fairness-CHRC exercising public policy function as well as deciding upon individual complaints; normal procedure to discuss fundamental changes in policy with Department before pronouncing upon them-If proposing fundamental change in policy which has been agreed upon earlier, obligation, flowing from doctrine of legitimate expectation, to apprise Department of fact and reasons so Department can respond before invoking full scale Tribunal inquiry with all attendant costs and effort-Commission's decisions should be quashed, having failed to adequately apprise applicant-Applicant further arguing whether CHRC party or intervenor, CHRC without authority to make representations on merits of case and whether rules of fairness have been complied with-Tribunal may make representations respecting tribunal's jurisdiction and play explanatory role with respect to tribunal's record: Northwestern Utilities Ltd. et al. v. City of Edmonton, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 684-Limited role rule not meant to be applied automatically in all cases of judicial review without some assessment of nature of tribunal in question and grounds on which decision challenged, such assessment to be undertaken in context of purpose behind rule accords tribunals only limited role in judicial review applications-Commission plays particular role on behalf of complainants-Respondents herein will not obtain significant economic benefit from outcome of complaints, therefore not interested in hiring legal counsel to represent them for purposes of present judicial review application-Neither of respondents have knowledge of facts underlying applicant's challenge to Commission's decision; procedure which CHRC followed under review-In limiting Commission's role, Supreme Court did not intend to prevent response to applicant's position-CHRC's decisions quashed-CHRC as intervenor, can participate fully in application, including right of appeal-Family Allowances Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-1, s. 7(1) (as rep. by S.C. 1992, c. 48, s. 31(1))-Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6, ss. 44(3)(a) (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (1st Supp.), c. 31, s. 64), 49 (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (1st Supp.), c. 31, s. 66).