Tiwari v. Air Canada and Canadian Auto Workers Union (CAW)

Tiwari v. Air Canada and Canadian Auto Workers Union (CAW)

The Tribunal dismissed the complainant's motion because it lacks jurisdiction to issue a general declaration invalidating s.15(1)(c) CHRA and must assess constitutionality and available defences on a case-by-case basis, ensuring respondents the opportunity to present a full defence; therefore the preclusive relief sought was denied.

Citation
2011 CHRT 16
Parties
Complainant: Ashok Tiwari; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Air Canada; Respondent: Canadian Auto Workers Union
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint (chra) / Ruling on Pre Hearing Motion Re: Jurisdiction and Admissibility of S.15(1)(c) Defense
Outcome
Motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
Age Discrimination, Mandatory Retirement, Section 15(1)(c) CHRA, Charter Challenge, Jurisdiction, Procedural Fairness, Stare Decisis, Remedies
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Labour Law Employment Law Age Discrimination Mandatory Retirement Section 15(1)(c) CHRA +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ashok Tiwari

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Air Canada

Respondent

Canadian Auto Workers Union

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint (chra) / Ruling on Pre Hearing Motion Re: Jurisdiction and Admissibility of S.15(1)(c) Defense

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal is bound by the Federal Court decision in Kelly and must preclude respondents from relying on section 15(1)(c) CHRA as a defence
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal can issue a general declaration of invalidity of s.15(1)(c) of the CHRA
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal should dismiss the complaint or decide liability without a hearing on the constitutional issue

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal dismissed the complainant's motion because it lacks jurisdiction to issue a general declaration invalidating s.15(1)(c) CHRA and must assess constitutionality and available defences on a case-by-case basis, ensuring respondents the opportunity to present a full defence; therefore the preclusive relief sought was denied.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed.

Orders

  • Complainant's motion seeking a finding of prima facie discrimination and preclusion of s.15(1)(c) defence dismissed
  • No general declaration of invalidity of section 15(1)(c) CHRA granted