Bell Canada Appellant

v.

Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada,
Femmes Action and Canadian Human Rights Commission Respondents

and


Attorney General of Canada,
Attorney General of Ontario,
Canadian Labour Congress,

Public Service Alliance of Canada and

Canada Post Corporation Interveners

CASE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND:

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision today, June 26, 2003, confirming that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is sufficiently independent and impartial to ensure that parties are given a fair hearing.

This decision of the Supreme Court arises in the context of a motion before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal which was brought by Bell Canada. In this motion, Bell alleged that the Tribunal’s independence and impartiality were compromised by two powers: first, the power of the Canadian Human Rights Commission to issue guidelines that are binding on the Tribunal concerning “a class of cases”, and second, the power of the Tribunal Chairperson to extend Tribunal members’ terms in ongoing inquiries.

The Tribunal did not accept Bell Canada’s position and ordered that the hearings should proceed. Bell then filled an application for judicial review to the Federal Court, Trial Division, which allowed Bell’s application for judicial review. The Trial division held that the guideline power of the Commission unduly fettered the Tribunal, and that the Chairperson’s discretionary power to extend appointments did not leave Tribunal members with a sufficient guarantee of tenure. The Federal Court of Appeal reversed that judgment, which led to Bell Canada then appealing to the Supreme Court of Canada.
ISSUE:

This appeal raises the issue of whether the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (“Tribunal”) lacks independence and impartiality because of the power of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (“Commission”) to issue guidelines which are binding on the Tribunal concerning “a class of cases,” and the power of the Tribunal Chairperson to extend the terms of Tribunal members in ongoing inquiries.

DECISION:

In the view of the Supreme Court of Canada, Bell Canada’s arguments were without merit. In its unanimous decision, the Court held that the powers challenged by Bell do not compromise the procedural fairness of the Tribunal, nor does either power contravene any applicable quasi-constitutional or constitutional principle.

In reaching this decision, the Court stated that although the Tribunal is not bound to the highest standard of independence, it must act impartially and meet a relatively high standard of independence.

The Court addressed several objections raised by Bell concerning the Commission’s power to issue guidelines regarding the proper interpretation of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which Bell alleged undermined the Tribunal’s impartiality. In addressing these objections, it held that the fact that the Tribunal must apply all relevant laws, including those formulated by the Commission, does not raise any issue of bias in the decision-making process.

Another argument raised by Bell concerning the fairness of hearings before the Tribunal was the allegation that the Tribunal would be more likely to favour the Commission during a hearing because it is the Commission which has the power to issue guidelines which bind the Tribunal. This argument was rejected by the Court and it stated, “The Tribunal seems no more likely to be to be biased in favour of the Commission because the Commission provides the Tribunal’s guidelines than it is likely to be biased in favour of Bell because Bell provides the Tribunal’s phone service.” The Court also rejected the objections raised by Bell that numerous roles of the Commission resulted in any bias. Bell had introduced no evidence that showed that the Commission was able to manipulate the outcome of a hearing before the Tribunal simply by way of its guideline making power.

In addition, the Court held that the Chairperson’s power to extend appointments was not an issue which undermined the Tribunal’s impartiality.


SIGNIFICANCE:

This decision is of crucial importance for the parties in this case, as well as for numerous other parties who have raised similar arguments in the context of their cases before the Tribunal. It is a judicial pronouncement which strongly confirms the independence and impartiality of the Tribunal. Parties before the Tribunal are ensured a fair hearing.

In making its decision, the Court recognized that the parties have spent significant amounts of time engaged in addressing and litigating Bell Canada’s challenges to the Tribunal, and that now, the pay equity complaints should finally be addressed by the Tribunal on their merits. Bell may well have come to the end of the road of its technical arguments, and such strong words from the Court should serve to move the case forward to its final conclusion.