Federal Appeal

Human Rights

Practice and procedure

Commissions, tribunals and boards of inquiry

Commission’s decision was not unreasonable

Complainant alleged that she had been subject to harassment and discrimination on basis of race, national or ethnic origin, and colour in course of her employment with respondent. Investigator concluded that harassment likely did not occur. Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissed complaint, finding that evidence before it did not support complainant’s allegations against her employer and that further inquiry was not warranted. Complainant’s application for judicial review was dismissed. Federal Court judge found that investigator adequately identified various allegations made by complainant and that evidence was insufficient to support them. Judge reviewed both investigator’s report and Commission’s decision, and determined that investigator did not deny complainant procedural fairness and that her allegations were without merit. Judge further found that Commission’s decision was not unreasonable in light of evidence gathered by investigator. Appeal by complainant dismissed. Judge made no reviewable error either in respect of procedural fairness issue or with regard to reasonableness of Commission’s decision. Investigator concluded that complainant had not provided any evidence to support her allegation that she had been treated in differential manner by her three supervisors; and similarly, that she did not provide any evidence to support allegation that she was not provided with harassment-free environment.

Miakanda-Batsika v. Bell Canada (2016), 2016 CarswellNat 5905, 2016 CarswellNat 5906, 2016 FCA 278, 2016 CAF 278, M. Nadon J.A., David Stratas J.A., and Donald J. Rennie J.A. (F.C.A.); affirmed (2014), 2014 CarswellNat 6482, 2014 CarswellNat 6483, 2014 FC 840, 2014 CF 840, George R. Locke J. (F.C.).

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?