Hughes v. Canada (Human Rights Commission)

Hughes v. Canada (Human Rights Commission)

The motion was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide the proper factual foundation to decide alleged Charter ss.7 and 15 breaches on a procedural motion; an application for judicial review is not an "appeal" under the Rules so s.30 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act does not automatically postpone payment, but execution against the Crown is prohibited by s.29 and the applicant has no legal mechanism to force payment absent compliance with Rule 474 and the Crown's internal payment processes; consequently no enforcement order could be made and no costs were awarded.

Citation
2019 FC 53
Parties
Complainant: Chris Hughes; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Transport Canada
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Registration and Enforcement of Tribunal Award (federal Court) / Motion to Enforce and Ancillary Relief (dismissed)
Outcome
Motion dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Tribunal Awards, Judicial Review, Charter S.7, Charter S.15, Crown Liability and Judgment Payment, Costs
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Public Law Civil Procedure Enforcement of Tribunal Awards Judicial Review Charter S.7 +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chris Hughes

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Transport Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Registration and Enforcement of Tribunal Award (federal Court) / Motion to Enforce and Ancillary Relief (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non-payment of a tribunal damages award engaged Charter ss.7 and 15
  2. 2 Whether registration under Rule 424 rendered the award immediately enforceable against the Crown
  3. 3 Whether an application for judicial review constitutes an "appeal" for purposes of Rule 474 and s.30 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide the proper factual foundation to decide alleged Charter ss.7 and 15 breaches on a procedural motion; an application for judicial review is not an "appeal" under the Rules so s.30 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act does not automatically postpone payment, but execution against the Crown is prohibited by s.29 and the applicant has no legal mechanism to force payment absent compliance with Rule 474 and the Crown's internal payment processes; consequently no enforcement order could be made and no costs were awarded.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Motion dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.