Donoghue v. Canada (National Defence)

Donoghue v. Canada (National Defence)

On the record before the CHRC, the decision to decline to investigate under s.41(1)(e) was reasonable given the lengthy delay, the prejudice to the respondent, and the absence of evidence that the complainant had done everything a reasonable person would have done; therefore no judicial intervention was warranted...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2011 FCA 50
Parties
Appellant: Clayton N. Donoghue; Respondent: Minister of National Defence (Attorney General of Canada on behalf of)
Court
Federal Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Federal Court of a Judicial Review of a CHRC Decision / Final Disposition by Federal Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Limitation Periods, Discretion to Decline Investigation, Canadian Human Rights Act S.41(1)(e), Prejudice to Respondent, Delay in Filing Complaint
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Human Rights Judicial Review Limitation Periods Discretion to Decline Investigation Canadian Human Rights Act S.41(1)(e) Prejudice to Respondent Delay in Filing Complaint

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clayton N. Donoghue

Appellant

Minister of National Defence (Attorney General of Canada on behalf of)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Federal Court of a Judicial Review of a CHRC Decision / Final Disposition by Federal Court of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the CHRC properly exercised its discretion under s.41(1)(e) to decline to investigate due to delay
  2. 2 Whether the Federal Court erred in concluding the CHRC's decision was reasonable
  3. 3 Whether the complainant took all steps a reasonable person would have taken to pursue the complaint and whether delay caused serious prejudice to the respondent

Ratio Decidendi

On the record before the CHRC, the decision to decline to investigate under s.41(1)(e) was reasonable given the lengthy delay, the prejudice to the respondent, and the absence of evidence that the complainant had done everything a reasonable person would have done; therefore no judicial intervention was warranted and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs awarded to the Attorney General in the amount of $500.00 inclusive of disbursements