A-668-80
Canadian Pacific Air Lines, Limited (Applicant)
(Appellant)
v.
Bryan Williams as the Human Rights Tribunal
constituted under the Canadian Human Rights
Act and the Canadian Human Rights Commission
(Respondents) (Respondents)
Court of Appeal, Thurlow C.J., Pratte J. and
Culliton D.J.—Vancouver, June 11, 1981.
Prerogative writs — Prohibition — Human rights —
According to appellant, complainant did not disclose any
discrimination within the meaning of the Canadian Human
Rights Act — Whether Human Rights Tribunal has jurisdic
tion to decide that issue — Parliament has given the Tribunal
jurisdiction to determine whether what is alleged by the com
plainant is capable of being discrimination and, if so, whether
discrimination has been established — Appeal dismissed —
Canadian Human Rights Act, S.C. 1976-77, c. 33 — Federal
Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10.
APPEAL.
COUNSEL:
D. Hodges for applicant (appellant).
Jack M. Giles for respondent (respondent)
Bryan Williams.
Hélène LeBel for respondent (respondent)
Canadian Human Rights Commission.
SOLICITORS:
N. D. Mullins, Q. C., Vancouver, for applicant
(appellant).
Farris, Vaughan, Wills & Murphy, Vancou-
ver, for respondent (respondent) Bryan
Williams.
Jasmin, Rivest, Castiglio, Castiglio & LeBel,
Montreal, for respondent (respondent)
Canadian Human Rights Commission.
The following are the reasons for judgment of
the Court delivered orally in English by
THURLOW C.J.: We do not need to hear you
Miss LeBel and Mr. Giles.
We are all of the view that Mr. Justice Collier
rightly dismissed the appellant's application for
prohibition*. In our opinion, the point taken by
the appellant, namely that the complainant did not
disclose any discrimination within the meaning of
the statute [Canadian Human Rights Act, S.C.
1976-77, c. 33] is a point that the Human Rights
Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide since the Tri
bunal has jurisdiction to determine whether what
is alleged by the complainant is capable of being
discrimination and, if so, whether discrimination
has been established.
Moreover, it is to the Tribunal that Parliament
has given the duty to decide such questions and
even if some of them could be regarded as going to
the Tribunal's jurisdiction, the Court should be
slow to interfere when there is no good reason to
think that the question will not be correctly decid
ed by the Tribunal, where there is an appeal
procedure provided by the statute and a further
review open in this Court under the Federal Court
Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10, and where
there is no reason to think that the defence of its
position before the Tribunal would be more oner
ous or costly for the person against whom the
complaint is made than by bringing prohibition
proceedings.
The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with
costs.
* [No Trial reasons distributed—Ed.]
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.