Digests

Human Rights

Judicial review of Canadian Human Rights Commission decision dismissing applicant’s complaint—Investigation report recommending complaint be dismissed—Commission accepting recommendation on March 4, 2009, but applicant receiving letter dated March 12, 2009 informing him that complaint being referred to Canadian Human Rights Tribunal—Subsequent letter dated April 16, 2009 informing parties of error, advising that complaint would be resubmitted to Commission with recommendation that Commission reconsider decision, dismiss complaint—Whether Commission functus officio, without jurisdiction when purporting to correct mistake—If not, whether Commission erring in dismissing complaint—Administrative tribunal making final decision fuctus officio except where slip in drawing up decision, or error in expressing manifest intention of tribunal—Here, Commission making final decision on March 4, 2009—Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6 not permitting reconsideration of final decision—Reconsideration described in April 16, 2009 letter inappropriate, without jurisdiction, nullity—Commission ought to have informed parties of error in writing, corrected that error by notifying them of decision to dismiss complaint—Regarding dismissal, no requirement human rights investigator interview every witness proposed, identified by parties—Interview required where reasonable person would expect evidence useful to investigator in making determination would be gained as result of interview, or where witness may have information that could address significant fact which no one else could resolve—None of the witnesses, purported evidence meeting test herein—Investigator’s conclusions reasonable—Application dismissed. 

Tinney v. Canada (Attorney General) (T-1521-09, 2010 FC 605, Zinn J., judgment dated June 3, 2010, 13 pp.)