Canada ( Commissioner of Official Languages ) v. Air Canada
T-2043-96
Dubé J.
25/6/98
12 pp.
Motion to strike Commissioner's originating motion on ground complainant's consent invalid as relating to complaints "closed" by Commissioner regarding lack of bilingual services at Lester B. Pearson Airport in Toronto-According to Air Canada (1) closed file such as complainant's in instant case cannot serve as basis for court remedy under Official Languages Act, Part X; (2) Commissioner's investigation conducted on own initiative and unrelated to complainant's complaints; (3) complainant's consent obtained too late and motion filed after end of limitation period under Act, ss. 77(2) and 78-Motion dismissed-(1) Expression "closed file" concept foreign to Act-No reason to conclude Commissioner functus officio with respect to complaint files accumulating in Commissioner's office-Functus officio general rule that final decision of court cannot be reopened: Chandler v. Alberta Association Of Architects, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 848-In case at bar, not final decision of court, since problem raised in complaint not resolved if institution concerned not honouring commitments-(2) Commissioner's investigation clearly relating to 15 complaints already received respecting 1994, in particular complainant's latest complaint, all directly relating to lack of services in French at Lester B. Pearson Airport-Even if complainant's file "closed" in bureaucratic sense of word, still available to Commissioner, who can use file as Commissioner sees fit and apply to Court for remedy with complainant's consent if consent filed within sixty days, as set out in Act, s. 77(2)-Moreover, Act s. 77(4) conferring very broad discretion on Court to grant such remedy as Court considers appropriate and just against federal institution failing to comply with Act-Statutory scheme set out in Act, Part X must be interpreted in relation to objectives-Act belongs to privileged category of quasi-constitutional legislation reflecting "certain basic goals of our society" and must be so interpreted "as to advance the broad policy considerations underlying it": Canada (Attorney General) v. Viola, [1991] 1 F.C. 373 (C.A.)-Complainant's consent to application for court remedy valid; complaint valid and could serve as basis for court remedy pursuant to Act, Part X; Commissioner's investigation clearly related to this complaint and to other similar complaints made by complainant in instant case and by other complainants; application made within 60 days after results of investigation of complaint by Commissioner reported to complainant; procedure followed by Commissioner consistent with powers and role as language ombudsman; Air Canada suffered no prejudice, since it was informed throughout investigation process and had opportunity on number of occasions to respond and comment before Commissioner's final report on investigation filed-Official Languages Act, R.S.C., 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 31, ss. 77, 78.