Canada (Attorney General) v. Baltruweit
Court headnote
Canada (Attorney General) v. Baltruweit Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2004-06-15 Neutral citation 2004 FCA 233 File numbers A-687-02, A-692-02 Notes Digest Decision Content Date: 20040615 Dockets: A-692-02 A-687-02 Citation: 2004 FCA 233 CORAM: LINDEN J.A. SEXTON J.A. EVANS J.A. BETWEEN: A-692-02 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Appellant and WILLIAM J. BALTRUWEIT Respondent and CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Respondent A-687-02 CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Appellant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent and WILLIAM JONATHAN BALTRUWEIT Respondent Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 15, 2004. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 15, 2004. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: EVANS J.A. Date: 20040615 Dockets: A-692-02 A-687-02 Citation: 2004 FCA 233 CORAM: LINDEN J.A. SEXTON J.A. EVANS J.A. BETWEEN: A-692-02 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Appellant and WILLIAM J. BALTRUWEIT Respondent and CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Respondent A-687-02 CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Appellant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent and WILLIAM JONOTHAN BALTRUWEIT Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 15, 2004) EVANS J.A. [1] As a result of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Pritchard v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), 2004 SCC 31, it is clear that the Applications Judge erred in law when he set aside the dismissal by the Canadian Human Rights Commissi…
Read full judgment
Canada (Attorney General) v. Baltruweit Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2004-06-15 Neutral citation 2004 FCA 233 File numbers A-687-02, A-692-02 Notes Digest Decision Content Date: 20040615 Dockets: A-692-02 A-687-02 Citation: 2004 FCA 233 CORAM: LINDEN J.A. SEXTON J.A. EVANS J.A. BETWEEN: A-692-02 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Appellant and WILLIAM J. BALTRUWEIT Respondent and CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Respondent A-687-02 CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Appellant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent and WILLIAM JONATHAN BALTRUWEIT Respondent Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 15, 2004. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 15, 2004. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: EVANS J.A. Date: 20040615 Dockets: A-692-02 A-687-02 Citation: 2004 FCA 233 CORAM: LINDEN J.A. SEXTON J.A. EVANS J.A. BETWEEN: A-692-02 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Appellant and WILLIAM J. BALTRUWEIT Respondent and CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Respondent A-687-02 CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Appellant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent and WILLIAM JONOTHAN BALTRUWEIT Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 15, 2004) EVANS J.A. [1] As a result of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Pritchard v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), 2004 SCC 31, it is clear that the Applications Judge erred in law when he set aside the dismissal by the Canadian Human Rights Commission of William Baltruweit's complaint, on the ground that the Commission had failed to include in its application record the gist of the questions on which it had sought a legal opinion. We would note that, when the Applications Judge rendered his decision (Baltruweit v. Canada (Attorney General), 2002 FCT 2000), Pritchard had not even been decided by the Ontario Court of Appeal (Pritchard v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission) (2003), 63 O.R (3d) 97). [2] At the hearing of the appeal before us, counsel for Mr. Baltruweit abandoned his request for the production of the legal opinion and of the questions from the Commission to which it had responded. However, he argued that the Applications Judge's order remitting the matter to the Commission for redetermination should be upheld, on the ground that the Commission's investigation of Mr. Baltruweit's complaint had been inadequate. [3] We are not persuaded that, in rejecting this argument, the Applications Judge erred. The investigator's failure to interview all the witnesses suggested by Mr. Baltruweit did not render the investigation so defective as to vitiate on grounds of procedural unfairness the Commission's dismissal of the complaint, especially since Mr. Baltruweit had advised the Commission of the gist of the information that the witnesses in question would provide. [4] For these reasons, the appeals of the Attorney General of Canada and of the Canadian Human Rights Commission will be allowed, with costs to the Attorney General here and below, the order of the Applications Judge will be set aside, Mr. Baltruweit's application for judicial review will be dismissed and the decision of the Commission dismissing Mr. Baltruweit's complaint will be restored. "John M. Evans" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKETS: A-692-02 & A-687 APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA DATED NOVEMBER 19, 2002, FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA FILE NO. T-2029-01 STYLE OF CAUSE: AGC v. WILLIAM J. BALTRUWEIT ET AL. PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: June 15, 2004 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Linden, Sexton, Evans JJ.A.) RENDERED FROM THE BENCH BY; Evans J.A. APPEARANCES: Ms. Monika A. Lozinska for the Attorney General of Canada, Appellant / Respondent Mr. Benoit M. Duchesne for Mr. Baltruweit, Respondent Ms. Monette Maillet for the Canadian Human Rights Commissions, Respondent / Appellant SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Mr. Morris Rosenberg for the Attorney General of Canada, Deputy Attorney General of Canada Appellant / Respondent Perley-Robertson, Hill & McDougall LLP for Mr. Baltruweit, Respondent Ottawa, Ontario Canadian Human Rights Commission for the Canadian Human Rights Ottawa, Ontario Commission, Respondent / Appellant
Source: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca