Larsh v. Canada ( Attorney General )
Jamaican-born applicant came to Canada under Foreign Domestics Program-Married to man who sponsored her application for permanent resident status in Canada-However, sponsorship withdrawn on break-up of marriage-After interviews with immigration officials, applicant issued with departure notice-Application for judicial review of notice unsuccessful-Nineteen months after interviews, applicant filed complaint with CHRC, alleging discrimination on part of immigration officers-Complaint dismissed-Application for judicial review of dismissal of complaint-Applicant alleging Commission's decision erroneous in law as, in dismissing complaint, Commission weighed conflicting evidence and must have determined applicant not credible whereas only Human Rights Tribunal may make such determination after holding adjudicative hearing at which both applicant and immigration officers could be cross-examined-Also arguing by dismissing complaint because officers denied making remarks in question and because no independent witness to corroborate applicant's account, Commission thereby abused its statutory discretion-Application dismissed-Argument whenever credibility central issue in human rights complaint, it must be referred to Tribunal, giving insufficient weight to broad discretion conferred on Commission by wording of Act, s. 44(3)(b)(i) ("if it is satisfied"), and consistent neither with subjective wording of that provision, nor with expertise and experience of Commission as specialist agency charged with investigating and screening human rights complaints-Commission neither required to approach evidence in same manner as adjudicative tribunal, nor to make findings of fact, including whether complainant credible-Matter of assessing evidence before it as whole for limited purpose of considering whether evidence reasonably capable of supporting finding by Tribunal that complainant has been subject to unlawful discrimination: Syndicat des employés de production du Québec et de l'Acadie v. Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission),  2 S.C.R. 879-Would be irresponsible of Commission not to assess evidence simply because complainant and person complained against gave contradictory accounts of events on which complaint based-As to second issue, Parliament has entrusted to Commission, not Court, responsibility for being satisfied that Tribunal hearing warranted or not, in all circumstances of complaint-Commission did not say that in no circumstances will it refer complaint to Tribunal when alleged perpetrator of discriminatory conduct denies that he did what is alleged and no witnesses available to corroborate complainant-Commission simply decided in circumstances of complaint herein, these factors satisfied it that hearing not warranted-Human Rights Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6, s. 44(3)(b)(i) (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (1st Supp.), c. 31, s. 64).