Megerdoonian v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce

Megerdoonian v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2005-11-15 Neutral citation 2005 FCA 382 File numbers A-519-04 Decision Content Date: 20051115 Docket: A-519-04 Citation: 2005 FCA 382 CORAM: NOËL J.A. SHARLOW J.A. MALONE J.A. BETWEEN: MEDIK MEGERDOONIAN Appellant and CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE Respondent Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on November 10, 2005. Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on November 15, 2005. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: MALONE J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: NOËL J.A. SHARLOW J.A. Date: 20051115 Docket: A-519-04 Citation: 2005 FCA 382 CORAM: NOËL J.A. SHARLOW J.A. MALONE J.A. BETWEEN: MEDIK MEGERDOONIAN Appellant and CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT MALONE J.A. [1] This is an appeal from an order of Campbell J., a judge of the Federal Court (the Applications Judge), dated August 5, 2004, and reported as 2004 FC 1063. That order dismissed the appellant's application for judicial review of a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the Commission) dated August 1, 2003. [2] The appellant complained before the Commission that the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (the Bank) had discriminated against her by treating her differently in employment on the ground of national or ethnic origin in contravention of section 7 of the Canadian Human Rights Act R.S.C. 1985 c. H-6 (the Act). [3] A Commission investigator found that the evidence presented supported the complaint that the appellant was adversely treated on several occasions and recommended that a conciliator be appointed under section 47 of the Act in order to attempt a settlement. Notwithstanding this recommendation, the Commission decided that, having regard to all of the circumstances, an inquiry by a tribunal was not warranted. [4] By letter dated April 1, 2003, the Commission communicated to the appellant its decision citing its discretion to do so under subparagraph 44 (3)(b)(i) of the Act. No detailed reasons were provided by the Commission in its letter. [5] The appellant, who is self-represented, raised nine issues on appeal for the consideration of this Court. Essentially she complains that the Commission failed to give detailed reasons for ignoring the recommendations of its investigator. She also complains that the Applications Judge overlooked the documents and evidence filed with the Commission, all of which point to improper treatment by the Bank so as to give rise to discrimination, as well as breaches of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982 c.11. [6] Dealing first with the absence of reasons. In my analysis, Campbell J. correctly relied on the decision of Gee v. Canada(Minister of National Revenue), [2002] F.C.J. No.12 to establish that the standard of judicial review for the exercise of the Commission's discretion to dismiss a complaint is that of reasonableness simpliciter. Where express reasons are not given, the result may nevertheless flow from the record. A Federal Court judge is entitled to look at all of the material before the Commission so as to determine if there is a rational basis for that result. That is what happened here. [7] On a careful review of the material before the Commission it is apparent that there was a rational basis for the Commission's decision not to follow it's investigators recommendation. Firstly, the investigator's findings were based on circumstantial evidence that subtle discrimination on the ground of ethnic origin did occur during Ms. Megerdoonian's employment with the Bank. However, the record does not reveal any causal connection between the alleged differential treatment and a prohibited ground of discrimination. In short, there is no credible evidence that the treatment of which the appellant complains was the result of discrimination on the basis of national or ethnic origin. [8] Overall, none of the issues raised by the appellant support a finding that the Commission exercised its discretionary power in bad faith, acted unreasonably or relied upon considerations irrelevant or extraneous to the statutory purpose (see Maple Lodge Farms Limited v. Government of Canada et al, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 2). Rather the material supports the finding of the Applications Judge that there was a reasonable basis for the Commission's decision that, having regard to all the circumstances, an inquiry into the complaint was not warranted. As a result, the order of Campbell J. should not be disturbed. [9] The appeal should be dismissed with costs. "B. Malone" J.A. "I agree Marc Noël J.A." "I agree K. Sharlow J.A." FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-519-04 STYLE OF CAUSE: Medik Megerdoonian v. CIBC PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia DATE OF HEARING: November 10, 2005 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: Malone J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: Noël J.A. Sharlow J.A. DATED: November 15, 2005 APPEARANCES: Ms. Medik Megerdoonian FOR THE APPELLANT ON HER OWN BEHALF Mr. Randy J. Kaardal FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Ms. Medik Megerdoonian North Vancouver, British Columbia FOR THE APPELLANT ON HER OWN BEHALF Mr. Randy J. Kaardal Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP Vancouver, British Columbia FOR THE RESPONDENT