Pankiw v. Canada (Human Rights Commission)
The Federal Court of Appeal concluded there was no error in the Federal Court's dismissal of the judicial review; the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the nine complaints against Dr. Pankiw, because parliamentary privilege does not bar adjudication of the contents of householder mailings in this context.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2007 FCA 386
- Parties
- Appellant: Jim Pankiw; Appellant: Speaker of the House of Commons; Respondent: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Keith Dreaver; Respondent: Norma Fairbairn; Respondent: Susan Gingell; Respondent: Pamela Irvine; Respondent: John Melenchuk; Respondent: Richard Ross; Respondent: Ailsa Watkinson; Respondent: Harlan Weidenhammer; Respondent: Carman Willet
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 4 December 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review of Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Decision / Appeal to Federal Court of Appeal (dismissed)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Tribunal Jurisdiction, Parliamentary Privilege, Householder Mailings, Discriminatory Practice, Canadian Human Rights Act
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Jim Pankiw
Appellant
Speaker of the House of Commons
Appellant
Canadian Human Rights Commission
Respondent
Keith Dreaver
Respondent
Norma Fairbairn
Respondent
Susan Gingell
Respondent
Pamela Irvine
Respondent
John Melenchuk
Respondent
Richard Ross
Respondent
Ailsa Watkinson
Respondent
Harlan Weidenhammer
Respondent
Carman Willet
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Decision / Appeal to Federal Court of Appeal (dismissed)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear complaints about an MP's householder mailings despite claims of parliamentary privilege
- 2 Whether contents of a 'householder' mailed by a Member of Parliament are protected by parliamentary privilege or the Parliament of Canada Act
- 3 Whether the material in the householder constitutes a discriminatory practice under the Canadian Human Rights Act (court did not decide)
Ratio Decidendi
The Federal Court of Appeal concluded there was no error in the Federal Court's dismissal of the judicial review; the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the nine complaints against Dr. Pankiw, because parliamentary privilege does not bar adjudication of the contents of householder mailings in this context.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Pankiw v. Canada (Human Rights Commission) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2007-12-04 Neutral citation 2007 FCA 386 File numbers A-50-07 Decision Content Date: 20071204 Docket: A-50-07 Citation: 2007 FCA 386 CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. LINDEN J.A. NADON J.A. BETWEEN: JIM PANKIW and SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS Appellants and CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Respondent and KEITH DREAVER, NORMA FAIRBAIRN, SUSAN GINGELL, PAMELA IRVINE, JOHN MELENCHUK, RICHARD ROSS, AILSA WATKINSON, HARLAN WEIDENHAMMER and CARMAN WILLET Respondents Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on December 4, 2007. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on December 4, 2007. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NADON J.A. Date: 20071204 Docket: A-50-07 Citation: 2007 FCA 386 CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. LINDEN J.A. NADON J.A. BETWEEN: JIM PANKIW and SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS Appellants and CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Respondent and KEITH DREAVER, NORMA FAIRBAIRN, SUSAN GINGELL, PAMELA IRVINE, JOHN MELENCHUK, RICHARD ROSS, AILSA WATKINSON, HARLAN WEIDENHAMMER and CARMAN WILLET Respondents REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on December 4, 2007) NADON J.A. [1] We are all agreed that Mr. Justice Lemieux made no error in dismissing the appellant’s judicial review application from a decision of a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) dated July 21, 2005. [2] Substantially for the reasons given by Mr. Justice Lemieux, we conclude that the Tribunal can hear and determine the nine complaints against Dr. Pankiw referred to it by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. We note, in support of the Judge’s reasons, that Joseph Maingot, Q.C., in his Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, 2d ed. (House of Commons and McGill-Queen University Press, 1997), at page 9, takes the position that in respect of the contents of “householder mailings” sent to their constituents, Members of the House of Commons cannot claim parliamentary privilege. Mr. Maingot takes the further view that “householder mailings” are not protected by the Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1. [3] In concluding as we do, we, of course, express no opinion as to whether the contents of the “householder” sent by Dr. Pankiw to his constituents constitutes a discriminatory practice under the relevant provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6. [4] Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed with costs. “M. Nadon” J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-50-07 STYLE OF CAUSE: JIM PANKIW et al v. CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION et al. PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: December 4, 2007 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: Décary, Linden, Nadon JJ.A. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: Nadon J.A. APPEARANCES: Steven R. Chaplin Mélanie Mortensen FOR THE APPELLANTS Philippe Dufresne Kevin Shaar FOR THE RESPONDENT (Canadian Human Rights Commission) SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel House of Commons Ottawa, ON FOR THE APPELLANTS Philippe Dufresne A/Director and Senior Counsel Canadian Human Rights Commission Ottawa, ON FOR THE RESPONDENT (Canadian Human Rights Commission)