Ramlall c. Canada (Attorney General)

Ramlall c. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2002-12-11 Neutral citation 2002 FCA 494 File numbers A-429-01 Decision Content Date: 20021211 Docket: A-429-01 Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 494 CORAM: STONE J.A. SHARLOW J.A. MALONE J.A. BETWEEN: HEM RAMLALL, BA, MD, DOHS. Appellant - and - A.G. (CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION) ASHA CHAKKALAKAL LIBBY ACKERMANN THE EMPLOYMENT RESOURCE CENTER(ERC) SKILLS FOR CHANGE & JEWISH VOCATIONAL SERVICES (SFC/JVS) HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CANADA (HRDC) Respondents Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on Tuesday, December 10th, 2002. Judgment delivered at Toronto, Ontario, on Wednesday, December 11th, 2002. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: STONE, J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: SHARLOW, J.A. MALONE, J.A. Date: 20021211 Docket: A-429-01 Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 494 CORAM: STONE J.A. SHARLOW J.A. MALONE J.A. BETWEEN: HEM RAMLALL, BA, MD, DOHS. Appellant - and - A.G. (CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION) ASHA CHAKKALAKAL LIBBY ACKERMANN THE EMPLOYMENT RESOURCE CENTER(ERC) SKILLS FOR CHANGE & JEWISH VOCATIONAL SERVICES (SFC/JVS) HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CANADA (HRDC) Respondents REASONS FOR JUDGMENT STONE, J.A. [1] The appellant appeals against a judgment of the Trial Division dismissing his application to review and set aside a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, dated August 27, 1999, with respect to a complaint he had lodged with the Commission. He alleged that the Employment Resource Centre had discriminated against him by denying him service on the basis of his gender and age, contrary to the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-5. [2] The circumstances out of which the complaint arose are succinctly set out by Rouleau, J. in paragraph 2 of his reasons: On March 5, 1998, the applicant attended the offices of the Skills for Change in Toronto, Ontario. He was referred to the Human Resources Development Centre at the Dufferin Mall (hereinafter "the Centre"), also in Toronto. He was seeking assistance to secure either job training or employment opportunities. On March 6, 1998, he attended the Centre and was directed by an employee to another room within the facility where pamphlets and flyers were on display. It is alleged by this applicant that shortly thereafter he was approached by a second employee who demanded that he vacate the premises since he had not yet completed the registration form. Mall security was called. In the meantime he completed the registration form but the employee refused to accept it. The security guard of the Dufferin Mall that had been summoned escorted him from the premises and he was advised that he was restricted from further attending the Dufferin Mall premises for a period of six months. [3] The grounds on which the Commission disposed of the appellant's complaint appear in the following paragraph of the Commission's letter to the appellant dated August 27, 1999: As I explained to you when we met, in order to establish the basis for a complaint, the Canadian Human Rights Act requires that allegations of discrimination be linked to a specific ground mentioned in the Act. That is, allegations must clearly show evidence of a connection between a ground which is protected under the Act and the alleged discriminatory behaviour. The information you provided us gives no indication that anyone at the Employment Resource Centre made any reference to your age, or that you were treated differently because of your sex. As I mentioned to you, it is not enough for a potential complainant to allege a suspicion as to the motives of the person allegedly making discriminatory distinctions. Also, without further information regarding the names of the persons involved in your situation, or of any witnesses to the incidents in question, investigation of this matter becomes exceedingly difficult. [4] Rouleau, J. concluded that, "like the Commission, there was no discrimination because of ... sex or... age". [5] The appellant asserts a denial of fairness and natural justice at the hands of the Employment Resource Centre, and also that the manner in which he was treated at the Centre on March 6, 1998 infringed his rights under sections 2 and 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In this case, however, what must be decided is not the quality of the treatment received by the appellant at the Centre, but whether Rouleau, J. erred in a way that would justify this Court's intervention in refusing to set aside the Commission's decision. [6] In answering this question, the substance of the appellant's complaint of January 22, 1999 must be kept foremost in mind. While that document states in its opening paragraph that the appellant felt he was "denied services by the .... Centre because of my (male) gender and my (advancing) age", nowhere in the complaint or in the factual statement that accompanied it did the appellant point to anything that supported his feeling that he had been discriminated against on the basis of age and gender. [7] In view of the content of the complaint it is understandable that it was not found to fall within the Commission's jurisdiction. As paragraph 41(c) of theCanadian Human Rights Act, makes clear, the Commission is required to deal with a complaint unless it appears to the Commission that "the complaint is beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission". In my view, there being no apparent linkage in the complaint between the alleged grounds of discrimination and the treatment received at the hands of members of the Centre's staff on March 6, 1998, the Commission's decision of August 27, 1999 was well-founded and Rouleau, J. did not commit any reviewable error in dismissing the appellant's application for judicial review. [8] I would dismiss the appeal with costs to the respondent Attorney General. "A. J. Stone" J.A. "I agree Karen R. Sharlow" J.A. "I agree B. Malone" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA APPEAL DIVISION Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record DOCKET: A-429-01 STYLE OF CAUSE: HEM RAMLALL, BA, MD, DOHS. Appellant - and - A.G. (CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION) ASHA CHAKKALAKAL LIBBY ACKERMANN THE EMPLOYMENT RESOURCE CENTER(ERC) SKILLS FOR CHANGE & JEWISH VOCATIONAL SERVICES (SFC/JVS) HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CANADA (HRDC) Respondents DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2002 PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: STONE, J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: SHARLOW, J.A. MALONE, J.A. DATED: WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2002 DELIVERED AT TORONTO, ONTARIO, ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2002. APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Hem Ramlall For the Appellant on his own behalf Mr. Barney W. Brucker For the Respondent (HRDC) Mr. Terry Hawtin For the Respondent (SFC/JVS) Page: 2 SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Mr. Hem Ramlall For the Appellant on his own behalf Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada For the Respondent (HRDC) Mr. Terry Hawtin Barrister & Solicitor 650 Highway #7 East Suite 301 Richmond Hill, Ontario L4B 2N7 For the Respondent (SFC/JVS)