Brochu v. Bank of montreal
A-566-96
Marceau J.A.
7/10/99
5 pp.
Appeal against Trial Division decision setting aside dismissal by CHRC of respondent's complaint based simply on fact notice of dismissal not supported by reasons-Appeal allowed-Considering fact remedy special and exceptional; considering role of Commission when complaint filed, namely determining whether complaint serious and whether complaint should be submitted to formal sanction of tribunal; considering consistent qualification in case law of decision to dismiss complaint under provisions of Act, s. 44(3)(b) as purely administrative and discretionary, while prescribing strict procedural requirements intended to ensure fairness and impartiality; and considering Parliament did not require Commission to provide reasons for decision to decline to investigate some complaints-Accordingly, no justification for introducing exceptions to clearly established rule Commission not required to give reasons when complaint dismissed under s. 44(3)(b) as convinced, having regard to all circumstances, inquiry into complaint not warranted-Despite increasingly popular argument that despite rule, exceptional circumstances may exist in which principles of fairness, natural justice require explanation of decision, proposition could never be appropriate for purely administrative decision such as that of Commission under s. 44(3)(b), made after proper and open investigation basically involving purely subjective assessment of testimony, facts-Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6, s. 44(3)(b) (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (1st Supp.), c 31, s. 64).