Brine v. Canada ( Attorney General )
T-104-98
Lemieux J.
20/9/99
39 pp.
Application for judicial review of decision by Canadian Human Rights Commission not to deal with applicant's complaint alleging termination unlawful being based on prohibited grounds of discriminationdisability, in particular mental disability-Decision based on Canadian Human Rights Act, s. 41(1)(d)-Complainant entering into agreement with respondent stating respondent has satisfied all obligations under Canada Labour Code, Canadian Human Rights Act-In March 1996, applicant filed complaint with Commission, alleging Ports Canada discriminated against him by refusing to continue to employ him because of disability (nervous breakdown) contrary to Act, s. 7-Mr. Dunphy, CHRC investigator, investigating applicant's complaint-Dunphy Report dated March 27, 1997, received by Commission on April 4, 1997-Report recommending to Commission conciliator be appointed to attempt to bring about settlement of complaint-On June 2, 1997, Bruce Outhouse, appointed adjudicator by Minister of Labour under Canada Labour Code to hear applicant's complaint of unjust dismissal, ruled settlement agreement, release, to be binding on parties, declined to hear complaint of unjust dismissal on merits-Role of Commission authoritatively determined by S.C.C. in Cooper v. Canada ( Human Rights Commission), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 854-When deciding whether complaint should proceed to be inquired into by Human Rights Tribunal, Commission fulfils screening function analogous to that of judge at preliminary inquiry-Duty of Commission not to decide if complaint made out but to decide if, under provisions of Act, inquiry warranted having regard to all facts-Central component of Commission's role that of assessing sufficiency of evidence before it-Commission acting as administrative, screening body with no appreciable adjudicative role-Commission decision made under Act, s. 41 not to investigate complaint being granted less deference than when Commission decides, after investigation, consideration of submissions by affected parties, to dismiss complaint under Act, s. 44-Dunphy Report not before members of Commission when deciding not to deal with applicant's complaint under Act, s. 41(1)(d)-Act clear in imposing statutory obligation upon Commission to consider investigator's report received by Commission-Breach of statutory obligation fundamental breach requiring setting aside Commission decision, error of law-Commission breached statutory obligation, procedural fairness herein-Failed to consider Dunphy Report as required by law before dealing with complaint, to have parties' input on report before deciding-Also failed to assemble necessary elements to enable it to shut down complaint at very early stage-Did not have proper factual footing not to deal with applicant's complaint-Commission's legal premise in deciding case also faulty-Commission wrong in thinking simple existence of release stating complainant satisfied employer met all of Canadian Human Rights Act obligations in itself sufficient to refuse to deal with complaint-Obligated to assess, consider circumstances under which settlement, release entered into between applicant, Ports Canada from perspective of Act-Commission failing to conduct required analysis-Some of issues touched upon in Dunphy Report but report not before members of Commission when decision made-Present case not type of case, plain, obvious where s. 41(1)(d) could properly be invoked in fact, in law-Application allowed-Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6, ss. 7, 41 (as am. by S.C. 1995, c. 44, s. 49), 44 (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (1st Supp.), c. 31, s. 64; S.C. 1998, c. 9, s. 24)-Canada Labour Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. L-2.