Date: 20010622
Docket: T-1696-99
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 693
BETWEEN:
HEM RAMLALL, B.A., MD., DOHS
Applicant
AND:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
(The Canadian Human Rights Commission)
ASHA CHAKKALAKAL
LIBBY ACKERMANN
THE EMPLOYMENT RESOURCE CENTRE
SKILLS FOR CHANGE AND JEWISH VOCATIONAL SERVICES and
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CANADA
Respondents
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (hereinafter "CHRC") dated April 7, 1999 and communicated to the applicant on August 27, 1999. The Tribunal advised that it would not pursue an investigation concerning the complaint filed by this applicant; he takes issue with this decision.
[2] On March 5, 1998, the applicant attended the offices of the Skills for Change in Toronto, Ontario. He was referred to the Human Resources Development Centre at the Dufferin Mall (hereinafter "the Centre"), also in Toronto. He was seeking assistance to secure either job training or employment opportunities. On March 6, 1998, he attended the Centre and was directed by an employee to another room within the facility where pamphlets and flyers were on display. It is alleged by this applicant that shortly thereafter he was approached by a second employee who demanded that he vacate the premises since he had not yet completed the registration form. Mall security was called. In the meantime he completed the registration form but the employee refused to accept it. The security guard of the Dufferin Mall that had been summoned escorted him from the premises and he was advised that he was restricted from further attending the Dufferin Mall premises for a period of six months.
[3] Following the incident, the applicant telephoned the manager of the Centre to complain about the treatment he received but it was not until January 29, 1999, some 10 months after the incident, that the applicant telephoned the Canadian Human Rights Commission (hereinafter "CHRC"), spoke with an officer in the Investigations Section to complain of the treatment received at the Centre.
[4] A letter dated January 21, 1999 was forwarded to the applicant outlining the procedure for complaints and the jurisdiction of the CHRC.
[5] In a letter dated January 22, 1999, the applicant set out particulars of his complaint. He alleged discrimination on the basis of his gender (male) and his age (47). Following a brief outline leading up to the incident, he alleges that shortly after having entered and having not yet completed the registration form "he was quite stunned by her forceful attitude and militant hostility. I told her that as a Canadian, I had a right to look first, then sign." He then alleges "after a few moments of visitation I explained that I needed to know if I would require any of their services before signing the form. She insisted that I leave or she will have me thrown out. She then called security to evict me." The complainant then goes on to suggest that he received no cooperation from Human Resources Development Canada (hereinafter "HRDC") employees or supervisors. The only name he was given was that of a security guard. Subsequently, speaking with the manager of the Centre, he alleges that he was admonished for refusing to sign the registration form. He explained that he hesitated because "the form requested ‘invasive information' such as his SIN, employment insurance recipient, GWA benefits and other status".
[6] There is no doubt that during the course of some months there was a number of telephone calls and much correspondence between this applicant and HRDC officials and with the Deputy Minister.
[7] Finally, on August 27, 1999, Mr. Alexander Waddell, responsible for complaints and investigations at CHRC wrote that the allegations of discrimination raised by this applicant must be linked to a specific ground mentioned in the Act before further action could be taken. He advised that the information provided gave no indication that anyone in the Employment Resources Centre made any reference to the applicant's age or that he was treated differently because of his sex. He goes on to explain "without further information investigation in this matter becomes exceedingly difficult".
[8] The following are the relevant legislative provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act which should be considered in this judicial review:
| 3.(1) For all purposes of this Act, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted are prohibited grounds of discrimination. 5. It is discriminatory practice in the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public (a) to deny, or to deny access to, any such good, service, facility or accommodation to any individual, or (b) to differentiate adversely in relation to any individual, 41. Subject to section 40, the Commission shall deal with any complaint filed with it unless in respect of that complaint it appears to the Commission that (a) the alleged victim of the discriminatory practice to which the complaint relates ought to exhaust grievance or review procedures otherwise reasonably available; (b) the complaint is one that could more appropriately be dealt with,, initially or completely, according to a procedure provided for under an Act of Parliament other than this Act; (c) the complaint is beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission; (d) the complaint is trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith; or (e) the complaint is based on acts or omissions the last of which occurred more than one year, or such longer period of time as the Commission considers appropriate in the circumstances, before receipt of the complaint. 42.(1) Subject to subsection (2), when the Commission decides not to deal with a complaint, it shall send a written notice of its decision to the complainant setting out the reason for its decision. |
3.(1) Pour l'application de la présente loi, les motifs de distinction illicite sont ceux qui sont fondés sur la race, l'origine nationale ou ethnique, la couleur, la religion, l'âge, le sexe, l'état matrimonial, la situation de famille, l'état de personne graciée ou la déficience. 5. Constitue un acte discriminatoire, s'il est fondé sur un motif de distinction illicite, le fait, pour le fournisseur de biens, de services, d'installations ou de moyens d'hébergement destinés au public: a) d'en priver un individu; b) de le défavoriser à l'occasion de leur fourniture. 41. Sous réserve de l'article 40, la Commission statue sur toute plainte don't elle est saisie à moins qu'elle estime celle-ci irrecevable pour un des motifs suivants a) la victime présumée de l'acte discriminatoire devrait épuiser d'abord les recours internes ou les procédures d'appel ou de règlement des griefs qui lui sont normalement ouverts; b) la plainte pourrait avantageusement être instruite, dans un premier temps ou à toutes les étapes, selon des procédures prévues par une autre loi fédérale; c) la plainte n'est pas de sa compétence; d) la plainte est frivole, vexatoire ou entachée de mauvaise foi; e) la plainte a été déposée plus d'un an après le dernier des faits sur lesquels elle est fondée. 42.(1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), la Commission motive par écrit sa décision auprès du plaignant dans les cas où elle décide que la plainte est irrecevable. |
|
[9] It is alleged by this applicant that on numerous occasions he attempted to obtain further information from HRDC authorities with respect to the incident and requested some type of enlightment from individuals he had dealt with on his visit at Dufferin Mall, which information he felt could have assisted him as well as the investigator at CHRC to pursue his complaint. There is no doubt that this caused him some difficulty in substantiating his allegations. On the other hand, he himself advised that he knew the name of one of the security guards that escorted him from the Centre and out of the plaza. I am not aware of any reason why this avenue could not have been pursued by the applicant were he satisfied that such individual could have been of some assistance and attest to the discriminatory conduct directed to him while he attended the premises of the Centre.
[10] I have no doubt that it may be possible this applicant may have been treated rudely. He was surprised to have been treated so discourteously when questioning certain aspects of the registration form, particularly the fact that he was under an obligation to reveal what he considered to be private matters. But I, like the investigator from CHRC, have not been satisfied that there was discrimination because of his sex or his age. There was no reason for the investigator to have pursued this complaint since there does not appear to be any prohibited grounds for discrimination that could be substantiated.
[11] We are all aware of the hundreds or even perhaps thousands of letters of complaint received by CHRC and for them to pursue what appeared to be an impolite and rude confrontation cannot justify an investigation.
[12] This application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, Ontario
June 22, 2001
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-1696-99
STYLE OF CAUSE:HEM RAMLALL
v.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA et al.
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, ON
DATE OF HEARING: May 29, 2001
REASONS FOR ORDER OF The Honourable Mr. Justice Rouleau
DATED: June 22, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Hem Ramlall FOR APPLICANT ON HIS OWN BEHALF
Mr. André Chamberlain FOR RESPONDENT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Mr. Terry Hawtin FOR RESPONDENT SKILLS FOR CHANGE AND JEWISH VOCATIONAL SERVICES
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Hem Ramlall FOR APPLICANT ON HIS
Toronto, Ontario OWN BEHALF
MORRIS ROSENBERG FOR RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General (Attorney General of Canada)
Ottawa, Ontario
Kevin W. O'Shea FOR RESPONDENT SKILLS
Barrister & Solicitor FOR CHANGE AND JEWISH
Richmond Hill, Ontario VOCATIONAL SERVICES
Richmond Hill, Ontario