The Federal Court has dismissed a judicial review application filed by a former public servant against the Privy Council Office (PCO). The case centered on allegations of systemic discrimination in hiring practices within the federal public service.
W.M., who served in the federal government from 2007 to 2021, alleged that the PCO’s employment policies and practices discriminated against him based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, and sex.
He claimed that the PCO promoted systemic discrimination by exceeding equity targets for members of employment equity groups, which, according to W.M., discriminated against individuals like himself who do not belong to these groups.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission initially dismissed the complaint, deeming it “frivolous.” This decision was based on a recommendation from a Human Rights Officer, who concluded that W.M. failed to establish a sufficient nexus between his employment and the PCO and did not provide enough evidence to link his allegations to prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act.
W.M. sought judicial review, arguing that the Commission’s decision was unreasonable. However, the Federal Court upheld the Commission’s decision, stating that it was reasonable and based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis.
In its ruling, the court emphasized the limited role of the Commission, noting that it functions as a screening body rather than an adjudicative one. The central role of the Commission is to assess the sufficiency of evidence before it, determining whether a complaint warrants further inquiry by the Tribunal.
The court found that the Commission reasonably concluded that the PCO had no control over W.M.’s employment or hiring processes, as he was never employed by the PCO.
“There was no evidence before the Commission of circumstances indicating a non-traditional employer-employee relationship between the PCO and the Applicant,” the court said.
It also rejected W.M.’s assertion that the PCO, through the Clerk of the Privy Council as Head of the Public Service, directed and promoted discriminatory policies.
“While the PCO promotes special programs encouraging departments to hire individuals from employment equity groups, the Commission reasonably found that the PCO has no authority or control over the hiring practices of the departments implementing these programs,” the court said.
The court noted that the Applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claim, adding, “The Applicant’s assertion amounts to a request for this Court to reweigh and reassess the evidence considered by the decision-maker, which is not the proper role of this Court on judicial review.”
Ultimately, the application for judicial review was dismissed, and W.M. was ordered to pay costs of $1,500.
Lessons from this case
- Understanding the scope of anti-discrimination policies: Employers must ensure their anti-discrimination policies are clear and well-documented. This case highlights the importance of transparency in employment practices and the need to align them with legal standards.
- Evidence and documentation: When addressing complaints of discrimination, thorough documentation and clear evidence are crucial. This case demonstrates that insufficient evidence can lead to the dismissal of a complaint.
- Role of Human Rights Commissions: HR professionals should be aware of the procedural role of Human Rights Commissions in screening complaints. Understanding the Commission’s function can help manage expectations and prepare appropriately for potential disputes.
For more information, see Miller v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 781 (CanLII).
