 Printer-Friendly Page
Date: 20040615
Dockets: A-692-02 A-687-02
Citation: 2004 FCA 233 CORAM: LINDEN 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)
[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 |
|||
|
|||
|
|
