Canada ( Attorney General ) v. Bouvier
A-461-96
Marceau J.A.
10/2/98
5 pp.
Appeal from Trial Division decision ([1996] 2 F.C. D-54) allowing respondent's application for judicial review, finding appellant had no jurisdiction with respect to six complaints directed against Department of Transport-Complainants had been refused employment as brakemen/yardmen or trainmen by CNR or CP by reason of inability to meet visual acuity standards established by Railway Vision and Hearing Examination Regulations-Complaints based on CHR Act, ss. 7, 10-Appeal basically founded on contention Motions Judge wrong in interpreting Act, ss. 7 and 10 as limited to relations between actual and possible employer and actual or possible employee, thereby giving full effect to fact Department obviously not employer or possible employer of complainants-Appellant arguing Act, s. 7 speaks not only of direct but of indirect action-Appellant further contending notion should be further extended, based on: (a) role of Department in adoption and implementation of Regulations, source of discrimination; (b) quasi-constitutional status accorded to human rights legislation requiring its provision be interpreted purposively; (c) frequency today of situations where contracts of employment do not involve strictly employers and employees; (d) importance of assuring remedy will go to root of discrimination and eradicate it-However compelling these considerations may appear, not open to Commission or courts to redraft CHR Act-Neither Act, s. 7 or 10 could withstand interpretation that would stretch their meaning to encompass Department not ultimately responsible for existence of Regulations-Government department cannot be held accountable to Commission for questionable provision of Regulation simply because given responsibility of administering Act on authority of which Regulation was validly enacted by Governor in Council-Might be quite proper to question validity of Regulations on basis of human rights principles and ideals, but apart from means of direct influence suggesting amendments under Act, s. 27(1)(g), only court of law could be asked to declare them unconstitutional-Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6, ss. 7, 10, 27(1)(g)-Railway Vision and Hearing Examination Regulations, C.R.C., c. 1173.