Genest v. Bell Mobility Inc.

Genest v. Bell Mobility Inc. Collection Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Date 2003-10-30 Neutral citation 2003 CHRT 36 File number(s) T753/0303 Decision-maker(s) Doyon, Roger Decision type Ruling Decision Content CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL TRIBUNAL CANADIEN DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE MARC GENEST Complainant - and - CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Commission - and - BELL MOBILITY INC. Respondent RULING ON MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OF A COMPLAINT MEMBER: Roger Doyon 2003 CHRT 36 30/10/2003 [TRANSLATION] I. INTRODUCTION II. CONCLUSION I. INTRODUCTION [1] On November 4, 2000, Marc Genest filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the Commission) against his employer, Bell Mobility Inc. (Bell Mobility). [2] In the reasons for his complaint, Marc Genest maintains that his employer discriminated against him in denying him the right to buy life insurance for his same-sex spouse in like manner as for a different-sex spouse. He thus claims that his employer differentiated adversely in relation to him in the course of his employment because of his sexual orientation and his marital status, in contravention of section 7 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (the Act). [3] The complainant's common-law spouse died on February 16, 1998. The complainant received no life-insurance benefit following this death. [4] The respondent has submitted to the Tribunal a motion for dismissal of Marc Genest's complaint on the ground that it was filed late. In support of this claim, the respondent invokes the application of subsection 41(1) of the Act and its paragraph (e) which read as follows: 41 (1) Subject to section 40, the Commission shall deal with any complaint filed with it unless in respect of that complaint it appears to the Commission that (e) the complaint is based on acts or omissions the last of which occurred more than one year, or such longer period of time as the Commission considers appropriate in the circumstances, before receipt of the complaint. [5] The last of the events giving rise to the complaint occurred upon the death of the complainant's spouse, to wit, on February 16, 1998, and the complaint was filed on November 4, 2000. [6] The respondent considers that the complaint was filed more than one year after the last of the events on which it is based occurred. [7] It finds fault with the Commission for having decided to deal with the complaint even though the complainant has given no explanations or reasons to warrant his being given more than one year to file his complaint. [8] The respondent is therefore asking the Tribunal to dismiss Marc Genest's complaint because it was filed late. The respondent's motion raises the issue of whether the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has the power to examine and rule on decisions of the Commission. The Vermette case1 provides an answer to this question. It is clear that a Human Rights Tribunal does not have the power to quash a decision of the Commission that has been made under section 41(1)(e) of the Act.... [9] Moreover, in Oster2 and Parisien,3 it has been firmly established that only the Federal Court has the power to oversee measures and decisions of the Commission. II. CONCLUSION [10] Therefore, the respondent's motion is denied Roger Doyon October 30, 2003 OTTAWA, Ontario 1 Canadian Human Rights Commission v. C.B.C. et al (1996), 120 F.T.R. 81. 2 International Longshore and Warehouse Union (Marine Section) Local 400 v. Helen Oster and Canadian Human Rights Commission (2001) 42 C.H.R.R. D/1. 3Alain Parisien and Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission, Decision No.1, 15 July 2002. COUNSEL OF RECORD TRIBUNAL FILE: T753/0303 STYLE OF CAUSE: Marc Genest v. Bell Mobility Inc. RULING OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED: October 30, 2003 APPEARANCES: Noël Saint-Pierre For the Complainant Patrick O'Rourke For the Canadian Human Rights Commission Dominique Benoît For the Respondent