Jordan v. Canada ( Human Rights Commission )
T-1387-93
Joyal J.
5/7/94
14 pp.
Applications for judicial review of CHRC dismissal of applicants' complaints against Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission (O-C Transpo)-Applicant Christopher Jordan visually, mobility impaired-Ambulates with aid of walker-Able to get off and on bus alone, but requiring assistance to bring walker on, off bus, to fold it for travel-Generally asking driver, fellow passenger or passerby for assistance-In 1991 mother filing complaint alleging 5 incidents of discrimination since 1991 when bus drivers denying him access to bus-While complaint pending O-C Transpo adopting policy requiring Christopher be accompanied whenever using regular O-C Transpo service-Informing applicants of availability of Para Transpo-Investigator's report recommending dismissal of complaint as respondent establishing bona fide justification-Also stating Christopher unable to secure walker once on bus-CHRC dismissing complaint without hearing under Canadian Human Rights Act, s. 44(3)(b)-Christopher filing own complaint alleging six further incidents of discrimination-Investigator recommending complaint not be dealt with because facts alleged not constituting discriminatory practice-CHRC deciding not to deal with complaint because facts not constituting discriminatory practice-Applicants alleging service efficiency, passenger/operator safety not bona fide justification; investigator biased in comments "cases of this type never go to the tribunal"; no evidence policy essential; alternatives to policy not discussed-Applications dismissed-Investigator not biased-Report indicating where parties not agreeing, applicants given opportunity to file submissions after report written, Commission not bound by report, did consider other evidence-Thoroughness of investigation report particularly important due to role of investigator in outcome of complaint-Question of thoroughness dealing with considerations, evidence investigator looking upon to conclude no bona fide justification-Policy requiring Christopher to be accompanied taken due to certain incidents leading to belief could not meet "essential" safety requirements, efficiency of service affected depending on time of runs, whether driver required to help Christopher-Given list of events occurring between Christopher and certain bus drivers, reasonable for CHRC to conclude as it did without violating rules of fairness-Judicial review warranted only where investigator failing to investigate obviously crucial evidence: Slattery v. Canada (Human Rights Commission), [1994] 2 F.C. 574 (T.D.)-Investigator not failing to consider obviously crucial evidence which would have undermined O-C Transpo's bona fide justification-Although some evidence, i.e. observations of Christopher's mobility instructor, possibly relevant, not justifying judicial review-Applicants given opportunity to respond to reports-Commission considering all relevant evidence before it-Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6, ss. 5, 15(g), 41, 44(3) (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (1st Supp.), c. 31, s. 64.