[2017] 2 F.C.R. D-10
Transportation
Appeal from Canadian Transportation Agency (Agency) decision dismissing complaint of discriminatory practices brought by appellant under Canada Transportation Act, S.C. 1996, c. 10 (Act), s. 67.2(1) against respondent Delta Air Lines Inc. — Agency dismissing complaint on preliminary basis that appellant lacking standing — Appellant’s complaint alleging certain practices of respondent discriminatory towards “large (obese)” persons — Appellant relying on email from respondent’s customer care agent — Agency finding, inter alia, that although appellant not required to be member of group discriminated against, must have “sufficient interest” — Determining that appellant could not rely on public interest standing to bring complaint before Agency — Whether Agency erring in applying general law of standing on complaint for discriminatory terms, conditions under Act, s. 67.2(1), Air Transportation Regulations, SOR/88-58, s. 111(2) — Agency erring in law, rendering unreasonable decision in dismissing complaint for lack of standing — Rationale underlying notion of standing: concern about allocation of scarce judicial resources and corresponding need to weed out cases brought by persons not having direct personal legal interest in matter — Such preoccupations warranted in judicial setting — However, far from clear strict rules developed in judicial context applicable with same rigour by administrative agency mandated to act in public interest — Agency erring in superimposing case law with respect to standing on regulatory scheme put in place by Parliament — Agency not court, part of executive branch — Act distinguishing between “complaints”, “applications” — Phrase “any person” in Act, ss. 67.1, 67.2(1), relevant phrase in present instance, referring to complainants who can bring complaint in writing to Agency — Phrase “person adversely affected” in Act, ss. 67.1(b), 86(1)(h)(iii) more restrictive, determinative of who can seek monetary compensation — Use of those phrases indicative of Parliament’s intention to distinguish between complaint to obtain personal remedy, complaint as matter of principle — Here, incumbent on Agency to intervene at earliest possible opportunity to prevent harm, damage resulting from unreasonable, unduly discriminatory terms or conditions of carriage — In that perspective, fact that complainant not directly affected, may not meet requirements of public standing not determinative — Agency cannot refuse to look into complaint on basis that complainant not meeting standing requirements developed by courts of civil jurisdictions — In so doing, Agency unreasonably fettering its discretion — Appeal allowed.
Lukács v. Canada (Transportation Agency) (A-135-15, 2016 FCA 220, de Montigny J.A., judgment dated September 7, 2016, 16 pp.)