Cape Breton Development Corporation v. Hynes
T-103-97
MacKay J.
15/3/99
12 pp.
Judicial review of Canadian Human Rights Commission's (CHRC) decision pursuant to Canadian Human Rights Act, s. 41(e) to consider respondent's complaint though related to actions more than one year before complaint filed-Respondent's employment terminated in June 1991 following fourth incident of leaving work early without permission-Employer not learning until five months later respondent claiming to have disability arising from alcoholism-In July 1992 respondent filing grievance, subsequently denied by employer-Matter submitted to non-binding mediation-Applicant advising in September respondent would not be reinstated-In February 1993 respondent filing complaint with Canada Labour Relations Board against union alleging failure to properly represent interests-That complaint dismissed in January 1994, reconsidered and again dismissed in April 1994-In March 1995 respondent meeting with newly elected union officers seeking support for reopening complaint-In October 1995 respondent first approached CHRC; filed formal complaint in May 1996-Ss. 40, 41 analysis report, recommending Commission deal with complaint, provided to both applicant, respondent-Both parties making submissions before Commission rendering decision without reasons-Application dismissed-Commission's decisions under s. 41(e) discretionary, administrative decisions not readily set aside-Also preliminary decisions, not decisions on merits of complaint-(1) Delay from expiry of one-year limitation period after respondent's termination until filing of complaint factor in considering whether complaint to be investigated-Not in itself basis for conclusion Commission's decision breached principle of procedural fairness-Commission's five-month delay from filing complaint until applicant formally advised of it not unreasonable-Claim of potential prejudice to applicant if complaint investigated premature-Evidence supporting claim of prejudice may be important in investigation and in ultimate determination on merits of complaint-Commission's decision not breaching principles of procedural fairness purely because of delay-(2) Burden on applicant to persuade Court decision unreasonable-Commission's decision not unreasonable or made without regard to evidence in circumstances-Factors considered: delays of complainant, Commission; applicant's claim of prejudice to its interest; public interest-Merits of case not relevant, except where plain and obvious complaint not presenting arguable case-Merits not appropriately assessed in application for judicial review where at issue, not fully investigated or considered-(3) Commission not required to give reasons in making preliminary decision to consider complaint filed more than one year after act or event giving rise to it-Merely administrative, discretionary decision-Process followed by Commission not breaching principles of procedural fairness-Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6 , ss. 40, 41(e).