HUMAN RIGHTS |
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Judge
T-554-99
2002 FCT 319, Heneghan J.
22/3/02
26 pp.
Application for judicial review of CHRC decision accepting respondent's complaint against applicant CBC even though complaint filed more than 12 months after date of alleged discriminatory act (respondent, legally blind, alleging discrimination on basis of disability, by denying him training opportunities, dismissing him from employment)--No training provided to respondent at CBC Radio in Halifax as new computer-based broadcasting system operating through graphic displays on computer screen and disability prevented him from working with program without some form of accommodation--No alternative employment available for respondent--Following layoff on March 31, 1997, respondent learned of existence of computer software system designed for visually impaired persons, converting graphic images into audio representations--Test demonstrating software system could successfully operate CBC's new system--On March 3, 1998, respondent filed grievance under collective agreement --Complaint with CHRC filed July 20, 1998--CHRC advising applicant of intention to investigate complaint-- Letter did not mention one-year time limit for filing complaints under Canadian Human Rights Act, s. 41(1)(e), or fact CHRC proposing to extend time limit by more than four months--Applicant argued extensions can only be made for compelling reasons, following procedurally fair process in which employer informed of facts relied on in support of proposed extension of time--Issue whether CHRC's decision to grant extension flawed by breaches of duty or procedural fairness, including reasonable apprehension of bias by CHRC --Application allowed--In Canada Post v. Barrette, [2000] 4 F.C. 145 (C.A.), Court of Appeal found that while no duty to investigate at preliminary screening stage, CHRC required to investigate on prima facie basis whether grounds set out in Act, s. 41(1) present, and if so, to decide whether to deal with complaint--Found that unless CHRC addresses issues raised by affected party, it neglects duty imposed by law--Letter of August 10, 1998 sent to respondent showing CHRC had decided to proceed with investigation of complaint even before it solicited submissions from applicant--CHRC's decision of February 18, 1999 not reflecting consideration of arguments and submissions made by applicant--Actually reflecting decision reached by CHRC as early as August 10, 1998--Mere existence of August 10, 1998 letter sufficient to cast doubt over entire process leading to February 18 decision --Application allowed in part on basis of Barrette--Applicant also sought order prohibiting CHRC from further dealing with complaint filed by respondent, on basis CHRC cannot be trusted to respect rights of employer to object to timeliness of complaint, and that it should not be forced to defend itself again in face of institutional bias--In circumstances, would be unfair to deprive respondent of legal right to have complaint investigated, as consequence of errors committed by CHRC-- Respondent should not be penalized for acts of CHRC-- Complaint referred back to CHRC, latter to deal with question of timeliness of complaint in accordance with F.C.A. decision in Barrette--Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6, s. 41(1).