Montreuil v. National Bank of Canada

Montreuil v. National Bank of Canada
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2001-08-21
Neutral citation
2001 FCT 927
File numbers
T-799-00
Notes
Digest
Decision Content
Date: 20010821
Docket: T-799-00
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 927
BETWEEN:
JOSEPH YVES PIERRE PAPINEAU MONTREUIL
known under the name of MICHELINE MONTREUIL
Applicant
- and -
NATIONAL BANK OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
TREMBLAY-LAMER J.:
[1] The only issue that is raised by this judicial review is the Commission's jurisdiction to accept a complaint that is not signed with the name of the person who is listed in the birth certificate.
[2] The applicant lives under the name and identity of "Micheline Montreuil". Among other things, his tax returns, bank accounts, credit cards and other financial instruments are under the name of "Micheline Montreuil". However, "Micheline Montreuil" is identified in the birth certificate as Joseph Yves Pierre Papineau Montreuil.
[3] On June 15, 1999, the applicant filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission (the Commission) in which she accuses the National Bank of Canada of engaging in discriminatory conduct against her.
[4] The Commission informed the applicant, in a letter dated April 6, 2000, that her complaint was inadmissible because it did not comply with section 41(1)(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6. In the Commission's view, filing a complaint is a legal proceeding. As article 5 of the Civil Code of Québec (S.Q. 1991, c. 64) states, this right must be exercised under the name assigned to the person and stated in his act of birth [birth certificate].
[5] The applicant argues that the Commission's refusal constitutes an excess of jurisdiction.
[6] Section 40(1) provides:
Subject to subsections (5) and (7), any individual or group of individuals having reasonable grounds for believing that a person is engaging or has engaged in a discriminatory practice may file with the Commission a complaint in a form acceptable to the Commission.
Sous réserve des paragraphes (5) et (7), un individu ou un groupe d'individus ayant des motifs raisonnables de croire qu'une personne a commis un
acte discriminatoire peut déposer une plainte devant la Commission en la forme acceptable pour cette dernière.
[7] Section 41(1)(c) provides:
Subject to section 40, the Commission shall deal with any complaint filed with it unless in respect of that complaint it appears to the Commission that [...]
(c) the complaint is beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission; [...]
Sous réserve de l'article 40, la Commission statue sur toute plainte dont elle est saisie à moins qu'elle estime celle-ci irrecevable pour un des motifs suivants : [...]
c) la plainte n'est pas de sa compétence; [...]
[8] Although the Act gives the Commission substantial discretion in determining whether a complaint is filed in an acceptable form, in my opinion this provision cannot allow the Commission to arbitrarily exclude a complaint that is prima facie within its jurisdiction solely because the signature on the complaint form, albeit the applicant's usual signature, is inconsistent with his or her birth certificate. The complaint is only the first step in the Commission's investigation process. It is not a legal proceeding per se, so the formal requirements under article 5 of the C.C.Q. are unnecessary in such a case.
[9] Furthermore, I find it surprising that the Commission, which demands flexibility and tolerance in human relations from everyone else, should become so formalistic in the particular circumstances of this case. Perhaps that is why the Commission chose not to intervene to explain to the Court how its jurisdiction could be affected by the simple fact that the complaint is signed with the applicant's usual signature.
[10] Consequently, I am allowing the application for judicial review.
[11] I order the Commission to accept that the applicant's complaint be written under the name of Joseph Yves Pierre Papineau Montreuil known under the name of Micheline Montreuil.
[12] I order the Commission to accept that the applicant's complaint be signed by the applicant under his usual signature of "Micheline Montreuil". The whole without costs.
"Danièle Tremblay-Lamer"
J.
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
August 21, 2001.
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L., Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET NO: T-799-00
STYLE: JOSEPH YVES PIERRE PAPINEAU MONTREUIL known under the name of MICHELINE MONTREUIL v. NATIONAL BANK OF CANADA
PLACE OF HEARING: Québec, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: August 16, 2001
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER RENDERED BY THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE TREMBLAY-LAMER
DATED: August 21, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Micheline Montreuil FOR THE APPLICANT
Unrepresented FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Micheline Montreuil FOR THE APPLICANT
Charlesbourg, Quebec
Ogilvy Renault FOR THE RESPONDENT
Montréal, Quebec