Canadian Association of the Deaf v. Canada

Canadian Association of the Deaf v. Canada
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2006-08-11
Neutral citation
2006 FC 971
File numbers
T-1720-04
Notes
Reported Decision
Decision Content
Date: 20060811
Docket: T-1720-04
Citation: 2006 FC 971
Ottawa, Ontario, August 11, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Mosley
BETWEEN:
THE CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF,
JAMES ROOTS, GARY MALKOWSKI, BARBARA LAGRANGE
AND MARY LOU CASSIE
Applicants
and
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
[1] This case is about access to government by the hearing disabled. The applicants submit that the federal government’s Guidelines for administration of its Sign Language Interpretation Policy deny deaf and hard of hearing Canadians the opportunity to fully participate in government programs. They seek a declaration that the individual applicants’ rights under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms[1] were violated on the basis of disability and that professional sign language interpretation services are to be provided and paid for by the Government of Canada, upon request, where a deaf or hard of hearing person accesses services from the Government of Canada or seeks input in government decision-making.
[2] At first impression, the applicants’ case presents difficulties, not the least of which is that they seek judicial review in one application of alleged acts of discrimination on different occasions by various persons, some unidentified, employed by several departments. Only two of the fact situations presented concern events of a similar nature involving the same agency. Moreover, the timeliness of the application has been called into question, the standing of the corporate applicant is challenged and the justiciability of the process by which the government seeks input into the policy development process is in issue. Nonetheless, I have reached the conclusion that they have established a breach of the Charter and are entitled to a remedy.
BACKGROUND
[3] The Sign Language Interpretation Policy, as deposed by Alain Wood, Director of Interpretation and Parliamentary Translation, Translation Bureau, Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada, (“PWGSC”), emerged from efforts to fully integrate deaf or hard of hearing people into the public service by facilitating their entry into government positions, and by assisting them to carry out their duties. These efforts included providing interpretation services for exams at the Public Service Commission, for competitions and interviews and upon hiring, for training and in the work-place. The policy was extended to communications with deaf or hard of hearing Canadians at events organized by departments and agencies.
[4] This is outlined in a letter, dated May 4, 1987, attached as an exhibit to Mr. Wood’s affidavit, from the then Acting Assistant Secretary, Human Resources Division, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, to all Directors of Personnel in the federal government to advise them of the sign language interpretation service available from the Official Languages and Translation Branch of the Secretary of State Department, as it was then constituted.
[5] As a result of a reorganization and transfer of responsibilities between departments in 1993, the Official Languages and Translation Branch became the Translation Bureau of the Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada (“PWGSC”).
[6] The May 4, 1987 letter indicated that the Translation Branch had been providing sign language interpretation to hearing impaired federal government employees since 1982 and that consideration was being given to making changes to the Sign Language Interpretation Policy to reflect the recommendations of an external advisory committee. The letter states that “[t]he department also provides the [sign language interpretation] service…to the general public at conferences and other meetings where representatives of the federal government are active participants.” [Underlining added].
[7] Accompanying the letter was a document intended to advise departments of the services then available to hearing-impaired persons. It is common ground between the parties that this document accurately describes the Sign Language Interpretation Policy as it was in May 1987 and that the policy remains in place today. The scope of the policy, however, is in question.
[8] The 1987 policy statement recognizes sign language as an independent language and that sign language interpretation is a linguistic service rather than a social service to aid disabled persons. The same high standards of interpretive skills and ethical practices required of spoken language interpreters were to be expected of the sign language interpreters employed by the Branch on a freelance contract basis. The use of freelance interpreters was intended to encourage the development and growth of interpretation as a profession in the public and private sectors.
[9] The statement sets out information about the interpretation services available from the Translation Branch in question and answer format. In reference to the question of when the sign language interpretation service provided by the Translation Branch could be used, the document states, “[t]his service is intended for any hearing impaired person in Canada who must deal in person with a representative of the federal government. This includes job interviews, meetings, federal commissions, etc.” [Underlining added].
[10] It appears that the 1987 statement served as a guideline for the administration of the policy until the current guidelines came into effect on August 1, 2001. Apart from the underlined portions cited in the above paragraph, the prior guideline limited the provision of the sign language interpretation service to hearing impaired members of the public seeking employment with the public service or attending formal meetings such as commissions, committees, conferences and boards of inquiry. However, it appears that in practice the service was made available for any meeting at which a government official was present and a deaf of hard of hearing person was participating. In fiscal year 1997-1998, this was done on 300 occasions.
[11] Beginning in 1998, the Translation Bureau began to more strictly interpret its mandate under the policy. By fiscal year 2004-05, interpretation services for private meetings between members of the public and government officials were provided for just 34 events. In contrast, the total number of visual and tactile interpretation services provided has remained fairly constant at between 2, 217 events in 1998-1999 and 2, 372 in 2003-2004 indicating an increase in services provided to deaf or hard of hearing public servants.
[12] The current guidelines state that the Conference Interpretation Service of the Translation Bureau provides visual interpretation for the federal public service. Visual interpretation is defined as American Sign Language, Langue des signes québécoise, English and French oral interpreting and deaf-blind intervenor service. The guidelines say that these services are provided to hearing, hearing-impaired or deaf federal public servants who, in the performance of their duties, must communicate with each other.
[13] Under the August, 2001 guidelines, the Bureau’s visual and tactile interpretation services are provided to the general public for public events conducted by the federal government such as committees, conferences, hearings, information sessions on legislation, regulations and policies, public consultations, seminars and symposiums.
[14] With the stricter application of the policy, the provision of interpretation services for meetings between hearing-impaired citizens and federal officials that do not fall within the scope of the Bureau’s mandate became the responsibility of individual departments and agencies.
[15] Under the current regime, interpretation services must be requested by the official meeting the hearing-impaired citizen. While individual departments or agencies may use the Bureau’s services on a fee-for-service basis, these services will not be provided if the interpreters are required to respond to needs that the Bureau is mandated to meet. If the Bureau cannot provide the services, the departments and agencies must contract for them with the private sector or non-governmental agencies. The Bureau maintains lists of such businesses or agencies to assist departments to find interpreters.
[16] It appears, from a letter dated November 22, 2001 to the Minister of PWGSC from applicant James Roots, submitted as an exhibit to Mr. Roots’ affidavit, that the decision to strictly apply the policy caught both government departments and representatives of the hearing disabled communities off-guard. While the Translation Bureau had been warning their “clientele” since 1998 that this was forthcoming, departments and agencies were ill-prepared to provide interpretation services for meetings with hearing-impaired persons. Most had no process in place for booking interpreters or budget allocated for the purpose. Where formerly it took 48 hours to arrange an interpreter through the Bureau, considerable delay was experienced in arranging funding and finding an interpreter if the Bureau could not provide the service. As a result, events did not take place or deaf persons were unable to attend them, including meetings with Members of Parliament, because of the lack of interpretation services.
Specific Allegations of Discrimination
[17] The applicants have described several incidents in support of their contention that they have been discriminated against in the denial of interpretation services. The respondent, in general, takes issue with the facts alleged by the applicants and denies that interpretation services were unreasonably withheld.
[18] These incidents can be summed up as follows:
· Denial of access to the policy development process;
· Denial of opportunities to contract with the federal government; and
· Denial of opportunities to participate in the Statistics Canada Labour Force Survey.
1. Denial of access to the policy development process
[19] This allegation stems from efforts by the corporate applicant, the Canadian Association of the Deaf (“CAD”), to participate in informal consultations with the federal government. The CAD is a national organization and the primary advocacy group for Deaf Canadians, defined as persons with moderate to profound hearing loss who identify with the use of sign language, and affiliate with deaf culture. The CAD submits that its role as a representative of Deaf Canadians has been adversely affected by the implementation of the new Guideline.
[20] James Roots is the Executive Director of CAD. He is deaf and communicates primarily thorough sign language. In his affidavit, he states that as Executive Director, he personally received accommodation for his deafness from the federal government during the years it applied the initial Guidelines for the Sign Language Interpretation Policy. He points out that, in general, deaf people have fewer job opportunities and lower literacy skills. This is supported by a 1998 study attached to his affidavit of which he is the co-author, prepared with the support of Human Resources and Development Canada (“HRDC”). As a result of these disparities, he says, many deaf people have come to depend upon the Government of Canada for rectifying inequalities in their access to the same opportunities enjoyed by other Canadians.
[21] Mr. Roots says that he was surprised to discover, in or about October 2001 that the Translation Bureau, applying the new Guidelines, would no longer accommodate deaf or hard of hearing persons in private meetings and would only facilitate public events. In a letter dated November 22, 2001 to the PWGSC Minister of the day, Mr. Roots describes, in general terms, the adverse effects this had on the efforts of his organization and others representing the deaf and hard of hearing to do business with the federal government.
[22] The specific example of alleged discrimination described by Mr. Roots arose in relation to an HRDC project to develop policies and legislation respecting homeless people which took place between December 2001 and February 2002. CAD staff anticipated being involved in informal discussions with HRDC officials in this process as they had been previously on other policy development projects. Interpreters were requested for this purpose.
[23] An exchange of e-mail messages attached to Mr. Roots’ affidavit indicates that at least one meeting in December 2001 was facilitated with interpretation services provided by an Ottawa-based firm retained by HRDC. On February 5, 2002, in response to a request for a further meeting to discuss a request by CAD for funding, an HRDC official responded that it would not be possible at that time. Her message states that “…we are under severe budgetary constraints and are not allowed to expend any funds that are not directly related to approved priorities…right now, I cannot get an interpreter. I believe we can after April 1, 2002 but not right now.” The reference to April 1, presumably, was to the start of the next fiscal year and the availability of a fresh budget. The official offered to continue to do preparatory work with CAD by e-mail until April 1st.
[24] Based on this event and his experience in general since 2001, Mr. Roots states that he believes that departments and agencies are refusing to pay for interpretation services for budgetary reasons notwithstanding that it is their responsibility to provide them now that the Translation Bureau has “off-loaded” this mandate. Moreover, even where interpretation is provided by those on the Bureau’s list of private sector or local organizations, the quality of the interpretation is not assured. The result, he believes, is that deaf Canadians who want to meet with representatives of the federal government are not being accommodated for their disability.
[25] The respondent objects to the reception of Mr. Roots’ evidence on the grounds that the CAD lacks standing and because his affidavit covers matters beyond his personal knowledge and thus does not conform to Rule 81 of the Federal Courts Rules. I will address the hearsay question here and deal with the standing question as an issue below.
[26] The requirement that affidavits be confined to personal knowledge does not necessarily exclude hearsay evidence so long as it is sufficiently reliable in accordance with the principled approach developed by the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to the admission of oral testimony. That approach has been adopted by the Federal Court of Appeal for the admissibility of hearsay by way of affidavit evidence: Ethier v. Canada (Commissioner of the R.C.M.P.), [1993] 2 F.C. 659, 151 N.R. 374.
[27] The hearsay in this instance stems from information received from a project officer employed by the CAD who worked under the immediate supervision of Mr. Roots. I am satisfied that Mr. Roots received the information from a first-hand source and that it is credible and trustworthy. The reliability of the evidence is also confirmed by the respondent’s affidavit evidence in response to interrogatories which verifies the accuracy of the e-mails attached to
Mr. Roots’ affidavit. The accuracy of this account was not disputed.
[28] This evidence, while admissible, does not establish that HRDC refused as a general practice to provide interpretation services for meetings with representatives of the deaf or hard of hearing communities. But it does support the applicants’ contention that the provision of such services was not considered a priority by the department for which resources would be allocated. The e-mail exchange occurred in the context of an invitation from HRDC to participate in consultations in the development of public policy. The applicants submit that while they may not have a right to be consulted in the development of federal policy, when invited to participate by government they have a right to equal treatment. A hearing Canadian representing another non-governmental organization would not have been denied a meeting in the same circumstances I think that is an inescapable conclusion from the evidence.
2. Denial of opportunities to provide contract services to the Government.
[29] Gary Malkowski is deaf and employed as the Vice-President of Consumer and Business Relations at the Canadian Hearing Society. He communicates primarily through sign language. Two hearing career consultants employed by Veterans Affairs Canada, Joyce Montagnese and Bobbi Cain contracted with Malkowski and another deaf Canadian Hearing Society employee, Donald Prong, to organize and facilitate at a career planning workshop for deaf and hard of hearing federal civil servants from October 16-21, 2001 in Toronto. Interpreters were provided at the October workshop by the Translation Bureau to allow Cain and Montagnese to follow and evaluate the proceedings. A similar workshop was conducted in Halifax in December 2001.
[30] Mr. Malkowski deposes that, based on the success of the Toronto event, Cain and Montagnese discussed with him and Mr. Prong the possibility of their leading a similar workshop for hearing civil servants. To present at such a workshop, Malkowski and Prong would require sign language interpreters. Mr. Malkowski states that Montagnese subsequently informed him that the visual language interpretation policy of the Government of Canada had changed and would not accommodate his request for sign language interpreters. The result, Mr.Malkowski states, is that he and Mr. Prong were denied professional opportunities that would have been available to hearing professionals in a similar context.
[31] Mr. Malkowski alleges that Ms. Montagnese informed him through e-mail messages that her department would not authorize the expense of interpreters because of the impact on its budget and that she had tried elsewhere to find funds without success. These e-mail messages were not entered into evidence.
[32] The respondent’s affidavit evidence differs significantly from Mr. Malkowski’s account. Ms. Montagnese states that she was involved with three events conducted in the fall and winter of 2001-2002 including the career planning event described above. Mr. Malkowski was also hired to facilitate the second event, a sensitization seminar arranged for hearing managers of deaf government employees so as to enable such managers to understand and deal with the challenges faced by their deaf and hard of hearing employees. Interpreters were retained as needed for four preparatory meetings.
[33] For the seminar itself which took place on February 13, 2002, Mr. Malkowski was asked to select a suitable interpreter and the interpreter’s invoice was paid by the department. Another seminar for deaf federal employees about preparing for competitions was held on February 27, 2002. That was the last such event Ms. Montagnese was involved with. Copies of related e-mails and invoices are attached to her affidavit.
[34] Ms. Montagnese states that following these events there was some discussion with Mr. Malkowski about presenting at a possible interdepartmental employment equity conference to be held in May 2004. The conference was never held due to a lack of interest among prospective participants. She says that the cost of interpretation services was not a consideration in cancelling the event. In response to a written examination question, Ms. Montagnese denied under oath that she told Mr. Malkowski that the Department of Veterans Affairs could not afford the cost of interpreters for him to present to an audience of hearing federal civil servants and denied that she was ever told by another department that they did not have the funds for such a purpose.
[35] While it is not clear from the evidence that Mr. Malkowski and Mr. Prong were expressly denied further contract opportunities with the federal government, it is apparent that the opportunity to enter into such arrangements would be limited by the availability of resources to provide visual interpretation services.
3. Denial of opportunities to participate in the Statistics Canada Labour Force Survey.
[36] The Labour Force Survey is conducted under the authority of the Statistics Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c.15 and is designed to measure the current state of the Canadian Labour Market. Participants are selected at random and are advised in letters sent or delivered to their homes that the information obtained through the survey is used by Statistics Canada to measure the month to month changes in the level of employment and unemployment in Canada and to provide key measures of the state of the nation’s economy. To ensure completeness and accuracy, full participation is said to be “extremely important” and is required for a six month period. An interview of participants is conducted each month.
[37] Survey instruments such as the Labour Force Survey are important to deaf Canadians. As evidenced by Mr. Roots’ study, conducted with the support of HRDC in 1998, deaf persons are subject to much higher levels of unemployment than other Canadians. Only 20.6% of deaf Canadians are fully employed; 41.9% are underemployed; and 37.5% are unemployed: 9.9% have no formal education. By comparison, relying on the study’s figures, 60.9% of all Canadians are fully employed and only 8.1% are unemployed. Among the conclusions reached in the study was of a need for training programs targeted to disabled Canadians to accommodate the particular communication and cultural differences of deaf people.
[38] Barbara Lagrange is a deaf woman who uses sign language as her primary communication method. She has difficulty with reading and writing the English language. In or about November 2002, she was invited to participate in the Statistics Canada Labour Force Survey through letters dropped off at her home in Thunder Bay, Ontario by a Statistics Canada field interviewer, Marilyn Wallace.
[39] Ms. Lagrange subsequently contacted Ms. Wallace through the aid of a Teletype Telephone for the Deaf (TTY) phone. They had two TTY phone conversations one Friday afternoon. Ms. Lagrange typed her part of the conversations and Ms. Wallace’s oral responses were typed by an operator and read by Ms. Lagrange at her end. This produces a verbatim account but the accuracy of the record is dependent upon the skill of the operator. Ms Lagrange printed and retained a partial record of the two conversations which is attached as an exhibit to her affidavit. She agreed that Ms. Wallace could come to her home on the following Sunday afternoon for the survey interview. This was to have been part of a six month commitment to record information respecting Ms. Lagrange’s employment status, a fact that was not immediately apparent to her.
[40] The evidence of Ms. Lagrange and Ms. Wallace with respect to the content of their telephone conversations, via TTY, and the subsequent events is conflicting. Unfortunately, the printed record of the TTY conversations is not very legible. What is clear, I believe, is that in the first conversation Ms. Wallace initially agreed to Ms. Lagrange’s request that she retain the services of a Canadian Hearing Society interpreter to conduct the interviews. In the second conversation Ms. Wallace told Ms. Lagrange that Statistics Canada would not pay for an interpreter and that, in any event, in her view it would not be necessary to have an interpreter to answer the questions. Ms. Wallace denies that she told Ms. Lagrange at any time that Statistics Canada would not pay for an interpreter but that meaning is what the TTY operator conveyed to Ms. Lagrange, as indicated by the printed record. Ms. Wallace deposes that she tried to retain the services of an interpreter but was told that one would not have been available for two weeks. She says that she was advised by her supervisor to try alternatives. It is clear from the record that she pressed Ms. Lagrange to agree to proceed without an interpreter.
[41] At their first scheduled meeting, two days later on a Sunday, Ms. Wallace went ahead with the interview using her notebook computer screen to show Ms. Lagrange the questions and to confirm her answers. Ms. Lagrange was not comfortable with that procedure because of her difficulty with English and the meeting was cut short. Ms. Lagrange later learned from a colleague that the survey was meant to be repeated over six months and was distressed by that news.
[42] In a subsequent telephone discussion, conducted through an interpreter, Ms. Lagrange tried to insist on having an interpreter present for the subsequent interviews and when that did not succeed, to have her name removed from the survey list. She then refused to meet again.
Ms. Wallace says that she was advised by her supervisor not to attempt any further interviews with Ms. Lagrange and told to complete the remaining months of the survey by simply driving by Ms. Lagrange’s home to confirm that she appeared to still be living there.
[43] Ms. Lagrange deposes that she felt like a second class citizen as a result of this incident and afraid that if she gave a wrong answer to a government survey, because of the lack of a qualified interpreter, she could be fined or penalized.
[44] The respondent’s evidence from the manager for the November 2002 field surveys is to the effect that if a member of the public who is deaf or hard of hearing asked for an interpreter, Statistics Canada field staff would have provided that person with a choice of alternatives including the use of a lap-top computer to enable them to see what was being written down, the use of a TTY line to conduct the interview or proxy responses from other members of the household. Statistics Canada would also offer to hire an interpreter, or, if the subject wished to have their own interpreter present, pay for the service.
[45] Evidence of an incident similar to that experienced by Barbara Lagrange was provided by Mary Lou Cassie of Halifax. Ms. Cassie is deaf-blind and requires an intervenor for many of her activities of daily living. An intervenor uses sign language and touch in order to communicate with Ms. Cassie to assist her with daily life, but cannot be used for complex communication as the intervenor is only trained to assist with basic functions. For complex communications, Cassie requires a professional sign language interpreter.
[46] Ms. Cassie received a letter from Statistics Canada in or around December 2002 requesting her to contact Statistics Canada about participating in a survey. Cassie instructed her intervenor to phone Statistics Canada to arrange for an interview and to request that a sign language interpreter attend. Two persons from Statistics Canada subsequently visited, without an interpreter, and insisted on using the intervenor to conduct the interview. Ms. Cassie told her intervenor to refuse the interview as she required a sign language interpreter and the two persons left. Statistics Canada made no further attempt to accommodate Ms. Cassie through sign-language interpreters. The respondent was unable to identify anyone from Statistics Canada who recalled these events.
[47] This evidence indicates to me that Ms. Lagrange and Ms. Cassie were not treated with the dignity and respect that they deserved and that the practices of Statistic Canada’s interviewers in the field can result in the denial of equal treatment for Canadians who are deaf or hard of hearing, notwithstanding the agency’s stated policies and procedures.
ISSUES
[48] As noted in the introduction, the respondent has raised a number of preliminary objections to consideration of this application. The issues that the Court must consider are:
1. Standing of the CAD as a party to the application;
2. Whether the application is improperly constituted because;
a. judicial review is sought for more than one decision; or because,
b. the application has been brought out of time;
3. Whether the Court should decline to consider the matter on discretionary grounds, namely;
a. that the subject matter of the application is not justiciable; or,
b. that the application is moot or premature;
4. Whether s.15 of the Charter has been breached; and if so,
5. What is the appropriate remedy?
ANALYSIS
1. Standing of CAD to bring this application
[49] CAD, as a corporate body, has no capacity to claim relief in its own right under s.15 of the Charter as it is not an individual having the right to the protection and equal benefit of the law. The respondent submits that CAD should also be denied standing to seek declaratory relief as it is not directly affected by the matter in respect of which relief is sought as required by section 18.1(1) of the Federal Courts Act. CAD seeks to be accorded public interest standing.
[50] The respondent acknowledges that the lack of standing to directly pursue remedies as an interested party does not preclude the granting of public interest standing but argues that the court should deny the association’s request to be granted that status. The respondent submits that whether a right to informal consultations with government employees concerning policy has been denied, this is not a right recognized at law.
[51] CAD submits that as an organization which represents the interests of deaf Canadians, it is entitled to claim s.15 protection on their behalf. In support of that argument, CAD cites the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Native Women’s Association of Canada v. Canada, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 627, 119 D.L.R. (4th) 224 in which the Court implicitly recognized the right of an organization to advance a s.15 challenge to government action on behalf of aboriginal women.
[52] As stated by the Supreme Court in Canada (Minister of Justice) v. Borowski, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 575, 130 D.L.R. (3d) 588, [Borowski] to establish public interest standing, three things must be demonstrated:
there is a serious issue to be tried;
the claimant is directly affected or has a genuine interest in the subject-matter; and
there is no other effective means available in which the issue may be brought before the Court.
[53] CAD asserts that the first two parts of the test established in Borowski are clearly met. There is a serious issue to be tried and CAD, as representative of the deaf community, must have a genuine interest in the subject matter. As for the third part of the test, the applicants submit that there is no other reasonable and effective manner in which the question of accommodation for participation in federal policy making may be brought to the Court as it is a role sought by non-governmental organizations and not by their individual members or officers. It was CAD that attempted to provide input to federal government decision-making, not James Roots personally. CAD is the entity that represents the interests of deaf and hard of hearing Canadians and has negotiated with the federal government as to access.
[54] The respondent does not dispute that there is a serious issue to be tried or that CAD has a genuine interest in the subject matter. However, it contends that there is another effective means by which this matter may be placed before the Court. There are other applicants who are directly affected by the matters at issue who may assert these claims. On this basis alone, the respondent submits, this court should refrain from exercising its discretion to accord party status to CAD: Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236 at 252, 88 D.L.R. (4th) 193 [Canadian Council of Churches]; Maurice v. Canada (1999), 183 F.T.R. 9, paras. 14-15, [1999] F.C.J. No. 1962 (QL) (F.C.T.D.) [Maurice].
[55] In the Canadian Council of Churches decision, public interest standing was denied a church group seeking to challenge the validity of the Immigration Act, 1976, S.C. 1976-77, c. 52, as am. by S.C. 1988, c. 35 and c. 36. The Supreme Court held that a balance must be struck between ensuring access to the courts and preserving judicial resources. Public interest standing was not required when it could be shown that the legislation in question could be attacked by a private litigant; in that case by any directly affected refugee claimant. While the principles for granting such standing, as set out in Borowski should be given a liberal and generous interpretation, they should not be expanded.
[56] In Maurice, Justice Reed of the Federal Court Trial Division granted a motion to remove the Métis Society of Saskatchewan as a plaintiff in an action against the government where there were private litigants and the Society was not a necessary party to have the issues litigated. This was without prejudice to the Society to seek intervener status or to become involved in a representative capacity.
[57] In this case, it is clear that the application would not have been brought without CAD’s initiative and resources. I am satisfied that the association is a necessary party to have the issues litigated, particularly with respect to the question of involvement in the policy development process. It seems to me that none of the individual litigants, with the possible exception of Mr. Roots, would be able to pursue that claim. Moreover, in so far as asserting the s.15 rights of individual deaf Canadians are concerned, CAD plays a role analogous to that of the Native Women’s Association, as was at least implicitly, recognized by the Supreme Court. I am, therefore, granting CAD public interest standing for the purpose of this application. If I am wrong in that respect, I would have granted the association intervener status.
2. Is the Application Improperly Constituted?
(a) Multiplicity of Proceedings
[58] The respondent contends that the applicants have consolidated the challenge of four separate matters into this single judicial review application contrary to Rule 302 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998.
[59] Rule 302 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998 states:
Unless the Court orders otherwise, an application for judicial review shall be limited to a single order in respect of which relief is sought
Sauf ordonnance contraire de la Cour, la demande de contrôle judiciaire ne peut porter que sur une seule ordonnance pour
laquelle une réparation est demandée.
[60] The respondent cites a recent decision of this Court which held that it is a contravention of Rule 302 for an applicant to challenge two decisions within one application unless it can be shown that the decisions formed part of a ‘continuing course of conduct’: Khadr (Next Friend of) v. Canada (Minister of Foreign Affairs) (2004), 266 F.T.R. 20, 2004 FC 1145.
[61] The appropriate remedy where Rule 302 has been breached is for an extension of time to be granted to allow the applicant to file nunc pro tunc one or more applications for judicial review in place of the one filed earlier: Pfeiffer v. Canada (Superintendent of Bankruptcy) (2004), 322 N.R. 62, 2004 FCA 192.
[62] The applicants submit that this Court has recognized that section 18.1(2) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7 may encompass an on-going situation where a number of decisions are taken: Puccini v. Canada, [1993] 3 F.C. 557, 65 F.T.R. 127 (F.C.T.D.).
[63] While the actions of three separate government departments have been called into question, and four individuals were independently affected by their decisions, the applicants submit that the facts of each case are similar, and that the departments are all arms of the respondent Crown. The type of relief sought is the same for all applicants, namely a declaration that the applicants’ rights under section 15 of the Charter have been violated, and that sign language services must be provided where the nature of the communication requires such access. The decision-making by each government department was essentially the same: due to budgetary reasons or lack of commitment, the interpreter services were denied. There was no exercise of power under a statute; rather the decisions or omissions were operational in nature.
[64] The applicants cite Truehope Nutritional Support Ltd v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004), 251 F.T.R. 155 at paras. 18-19, 2004 FC 658 [Truehope] in which the Court stated that the “distinctions between the two decisions as argued by the respondents do not outweigh the similarities, the distinctions are not so complex as to create confusion and to require two separate judicial review applications be made, given the similarities, would be a waste of time and effort.” In this case, the applicants assert that it would be unreasonable to ask them to split their application for judicial review into four separate matters.
[65] Truehope was a motion for leave to file an amended Notice of Application to seek judicial review of two decisions in the same application. The decisions, although separate in time, involved the same decision maker (i.e., the same government branch, albeit different officials) and the same subject matter. The factual underpinnings, save for the date, and legal arguments would be the same. Accordingly the motion was granted.
[66] In this case, the commonality among the four applicants is that their situations arose out of the application of the same set of guidelines for the provision of interpretation services. While each incident involved its own facts and decision-makers (different government departments and different employees), the heart of the matter is the application of the same policy to the same interested community. Accordingly, I agree that it would be unreasonable to split the application.
(b) Is the application out of time?
[67] Section 18.1(2) of the Federal Courts Act states that an application for judicial review in respect of a decision or an order of a federal board, commission or other tribunal shall be made within 30 days after the time the decision or order was first communicated. The section also allows the Court to fix or allow an extension of time before or after the expiration of the 30 days.
[68] The respondent submits that the applicants have failed to file their application within this time limit and failed to seek an extension of time by motion in accordance with the requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998. In order to obtain the unusual, discretionary remedy of a time extension under subsection 18.1(2), an applicant must both justify the delay in commencing an application within the thirty day period, and establish a reasonable chance of success on the merits.
[69] To justify the delay, the applicant must show evidence of a stated intent to commence an application within the thirty day period. There must be a continuing intention to bring an application for judicial review, and, at a bare minimum, the applicant must show that there is, at least, an arguable case: Council of Canadians v. Canada (Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act) (1996), 124 F.T.R. 269 (F.C.T.D.) aff’d (1997), 212 N.R. 254 (F.C.A.).
[70] Each of the factual circumstances alleged occurred more than two years prior to the commencement of this application on September 2, 2004, long after the material facts needed to commence the application were known to the applicants. The applicants’ explanations for the delay do not provide a sufficient or persuasive explanation for the nearly two-year delay in commencing the proceedings, in the respondent’s view.
[71] The applicants’ submit that their claims are not out of time because they are not seeking review and reconsideration of final decisions, but rather redress for systemic acts of discrimination that by their very nature, are continuing. The denial of sign language interpretation was purely administrative, and did not constitute “decisions or orders” subject to the time limitation of 18.1(2) of the Federal Courts Act. The only remedy sought is declaratory rel