Bastide v. Canada Post Corporation

Bastide v. Canada Post Corporation
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2006-09-28
Neutral citation
2006 FCA 318
File numbers
A-524-05
Notes
Digest
Decision Content
Date: 20060928 Dockets: A-524-05
A-523-05
Citation: 2006 FCA 318
CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
A-524-05
BETWEEN:
JEANNINE BASTIDE
SUZE AIMÉ
CÉCILE AUGER
JEANNE-ALICE BELLEROSE
BERNARD BENOIT
DANIELLE BERGERON
PRUDENCE BLAIN
GILLES BOUCHARD (ESTATE OF AIMÉE BOULAY)
JEANNINE BOURASSA
MADELEINE BOUTET-BOURGEOIS
HUGUETTE CARON
JEAN-PAUL CASTONGUAY
JOCELYNE CUTLER
JOSEPH D’ARGENZIO
LUCIE DAVIAULT
MAUD DUBUISSON
THÉRÈSE DUBÉ
FRANTZ GERMAIN
GINETTE GIGUÈRE
GILLES GRAVEL (ESTATE OF LUCIEN GRAVEL)
JOCELYNE JEAN-CHARLES
JOCELYNE JOSEPH
MARCELLE LAJOIE-QUESSY
NICOLE LANDRY
CLAUDETTE LARIVIÈRE
DENISE LAROUCHE
NICOLE MARCOTTE
GEORGETTE MIGNAULT
SOLANGE PELLETIER
COLETTE PERRAULT
HENRIETTE PERRON-RHÉAUME
ROBERT ROBILLARD
MARIE-CLAUDE SILENCIEUX
JACQUELINE ST-PIERRE (ESTATE OF NORMANDE ST-PIERRE)
RÉJEANNE YIP
Appellants
and
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A-523-05
BETWEEN:
KENNETH DOOLAN
GINETTE ALLARD
LIVIO BONI
CAROLE CHARRON
LAWRENCE SITAHAL
Appellants
and
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Respondent
Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec, on September 28, 2006.
Judgment delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on September 28, 2006.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
Date: 20060928 Dockets: A-524-05
A-523-05
Citation: 2006 FCA 318
CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
A-524-05
BETWEEN:
JEANNINE BASTIDE
SUZE AIMÉ
CÉCILE AUGER
JEANNE-ALICE BELLEROSE
BERNARD BENOIT
DANIELLE BERGERON
PRUDENCE BLAIN
GILLES BOUCHARD (ESTATE OF AIMÉE BOULAY)
JEANNINE BOURASSA
MADELEINE BOUTET-BOURGEOIS
HUGUETTE CARON
JEAN-PAUL CASTONGUAY
JOCELYNE CUTLER
JOSEPH D’ARGENZIO
LUCIE DAVIAULT
MAUD DUBUISSON
THÉRÈSE DUBÉ
FRANTZ GERMAIN
GINETTE GIGUÈRE
GILLES GRAVEL (ESTATE OF LUCIEN GRAVEL)
JOCELYNE JEAN-CHARLES
JOCELYNE JOSEPH
MARCELLE LAJOIE-QUESSY
NICOLE LANDRY
CLAUDETTE LARIVIÈRE
DENISE LAROUCHE
NICOLE MARCOTTE
GEORGETTE MIGNAULT
SOLANGE PELLETIER
COLETTE PERRAULT
HENRIETTE PERRON-RHÉAUME
ROBERT ROBILLARD
MARIE-CLAUDE SILENCIEUX
JACQUELINE ST-PIERRE (ESTATE OF NORMANDE ST-PIERRE)
RÉJEANNE YIP
Appellants
and
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A-523-05
BETWEEN:
KENNETH DOOLAN
GINETTE ALLARD
LIVIO BONI
CAROLE CHARRON
LAWRENCE SITAHAL
Appellants
and
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on September 28, 2006)
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
[1] This is an appeal in dockets A-524-05 and A-523-05 seeking to overturn the decision of Mr. Justice de Montigny of the Federal Court (the judge). That decision was made in docket T‑2115‑04, and a copy of the reasons was filed in docket T-2116-04 in support of the judgment therein. Similarly, since these two appeals raise the same issues and were argued together, a copy of these reasons will be filed in the related docket A-523-05 in support of the judgment to be made therein.
[2] At the end of his decision, the judge upheld the decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the Commission) not to request the Chairperson of the Tribunal to institute an inquiry into the complaints of the appellants alleging discrimination.
[3] The appellants contend that the manual dexterity test they had to undergo to obtain a permanent position at the Canada Post Corporation disadvantaged them in relation to younger employees, contrary to sections 7 and 10 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6 (the Act).
[4] There is no need to elaborate on the details surrounding the facts alleged against the respondent and its investigation. Suffice it to say that the appellants’ complaints led to an investigation by a person designated by the Commission. Once the investigation was concluded, the investigator recommended that the Commission institute an inquiry into the complaints.
[5] The investigator’s report was sent to the parties, who were invited to make submissions on the report, and they both did.
[6] After reviewing the report and the submissions, the Commission dismissed the complaints on the ground that the respondent had established a bona fide occupational requirement under section 15 of the Act. The appellants sought judicial review of the Commission’s decision in Federal Court, but the application was dismissed on the merits.
[7] We have not been persuaded that the judge’s assessment of the issues before him constitutes an error of fact or law that could require or justify our intervention.
[8] Counsel for the appellants emphasized that there was no evidence in the record of accommodation by the respondent This argument was also made to the judge who, in our view, provided a comprehensive response at paragraphs 47 to 49 of his reasons.
[9] The Commission enjoys considerable latitude when performing its screening function on receipt of an investigator’s report: Bell Canada v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, [1999] 1 F.C. 113. “Courts must not intervene lightly in the decisions of the Commission at this stage”: ibidem, at paragraph 38. If the Commission enjoys a wide latitude to allow a complaint and to request that an inquiry be instituted to examine its merits, it has the same latitude to refuse to do so and to dismiss the complaint.
[10] In this case, after hearing the parties’ submissions, the judge ruled that the Commission could reasonably find on the evidence before it that the respondent had established a bona fide occupational requirement. Absent evidence that the Commission exercised its discretion in contravention of the Act or in a non-judicial manner, it was not the role of the judge to substitute his assessment of the facts or his discretion for the Commission’s; aware of the limits of his role, he refrained from so doing.
[11] Counsel for the appellants contends that the audi alteram partem rule was breached because the appellants, using normal methods of adducing evidence, were unable to refute documents that the respondent presented to the Commission as evidence of undue hardship.
[12] This alleged breach of the audi alteram partem rule was neither raised formally before the judge nor properly brought to his attention or the respondent’s in a timely manner in the originating notice of motion and supporting affidavits. Therefore, the judge cannot be criticized under the circumstances for failing to sanction such a breach, if there was one. The parties had the opportunity to make submissions on the investigator’s report and the evidence obtained by the investigator, as well as to respond to each other’s submissions. At this stage of the investigation, the Commission’s role is not to decide the merits of the complaint, but “to decide if, under the provisions of the Act, an inquiry is warranted having regard to all the facts.” Cooper v. Canada (Human Rights Tribunal), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 854, at page 891. We do not see any violation of procedural fairness in the way the Commission proceeded: Gardner v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FCA 284, at paragraph 32.
[13] For these reasons, the appeal will be dismissed. The respondent did not request costs and none are awarded.
“Gilles Létourneau”
J.A.
Certified true translation
Mary Jo Egan, LLB
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-524-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: JEANNINE BASTIDE ET AL. v.
CANADA POST CORPORATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: September 28, 2006
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Pierre Langlois
FOR THE APPELLANTS
Suzanne Thibaudeau
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Pierre Langlois
Montréal, Quebec
FOR THE APPELLANTS
HEENAN BLAIKIE
Montréal, Quebec
FOR THE RESPONDENT
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-523-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: KENNETH DOOLAN ET AL. v.
CANADA POST CORPORATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: September 28, 2006
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Pierre Langlois
FOR THE APPELLANTS
Suzanne Thibaudeau
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Pierre Langlois
Montréal, Quebec
FOR THE APPELLANTS
HEENAN BLAIKIE
Montréal, Quebec
FOR THE RESPONDENT
Date: 20060928 Docket: A-524-05
Montréal, Quebec, September 28, 2006
CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
JEANNINE BASTIDE
SUZE AIMÉ
CÉCILE AUGER
JEANNE-ALICE BELLEROSE
BERNARD BENOIT
DANIELLE BERGERON
PRUDENCE BLAIN
GILLES BOUCHARD (ESTATE OF AIMÉE BOULAY)
JEANNINE BOURASSA
MADELEINE BOUTET-BOURGEOIS
HUGUETTE CARON
JEAN-PAUL CASTONGUAY
JOCELYNE CUTLER
JOSEPH D’ARGENZIO
LUCIE DAVIAULT
MAUD DUBUISSON
THÉRÈSE DUBÉ
FRANTZ GERMAIN
GINETTE GIGUÈRE
GILLES GRAVEL (ESTATE OF LUCIEN GRAVEL)
JOCELYNE JEAN-CHARLES
JOCELYNE JOSEPH
MARCELLE LAJOIE-QUESSY
NICOLE LANDRY
CLAUDETTE LARIVIÈRE
DENISE LAROUCHE
NICOLE MARCOTTE
GEORGETTE MIGNAULT
SOLANGE PELLETIER
COLETTE PERRAULT
HENRIETTE PERRON-RHÉAUME
ROBERT ROBILLARD
MARIE-CLAUDE SILENCIEUX
JACQUELINE ST-PIERRE (ESTATE OF NORMANDE ST-PIERRE)
RÉJEANNE YIP
Appellants
and
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Respondent
JUDGMENT
The appeal is dismissed.
“Gilles Létourneau”
J.A.
Certified true translation
Mary Jo Egan, LLB