The Federal Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by former Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) employee who alleged that the bank discriminated against him on the grounds of disability and sexual orientation. The Court found that the Canadian Human Rights Commission conducted a fair and thorough investigation and that its decision to dismiss the complaint was reasonable.
The employee — A.J. — worked as a Financial Services Representative in a CIBC call centre, where his duties involved making 60 to 70 calls daily to potential clients. He asserted that these demands led to severe throat and vocal cord pain, and that CIBC refused to accommodate his disability by offering an alternative position.
Additionally, A.J. claimed he faced retaliation, was denied promotions, and was ultimately terminated because he is a heterosexual male who refused to join what he described as “the group” of gay and bisexual managers and employees at CIBC.
After his initial complaint was dismissed by the Commission on the grounds that further inquiry was not warranted, A.J. sought judicial review. In Jagadeesh v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2019 FC 1224 (Jagadeesh #1), the Federal Court quashed the Commission’s decision, finding that it had only investigated his disability-related concerns and had failed to consider his allegations of discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Court directed the Commission to conduct a fresh investigation and make a new decision based on the full record.
Following a second investigation by a new investigator, the Commission again dismissed A.J.’s complaint. A.J. challenged this decision, but in Jagadeesh v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2023 FC 1311 (Jagadeesh #2), the Federal Court upheld the Commission’s dismissal, concluding that A.J. had been treated fairly and that the Commission’s decision was reasonable.
In the appeal before the Federal Court of Appeal, A.J. argued that the Commission failed to follow the Federal Court’s direction in Jagadeesh #1 to make a decision based on “the full record,” alleging that the Commissioners did not review all the evidence he had submitted. He also contended that the Commission’s investigation was biased and not thorough, and that the Federal Court erred in its application of the standards of review.
Justice Anne Mactavish, writing for a unanimous Court, rejected these arguments. The Court emphasized that the Commission’s role is to decide whether further inquiry into a complaint is warranted, having broad discretion in making this determination. The Court noted that the Commission is not an adjudicative body but acts as a gatekeeper, assessing the sufficiency of the evidence.
Addressing A.J.’s claim that the Commission failed to consider all his evidence, the Court found that the Commission was not obligated to review every document submitted to the investigator. “The process outlined in the [Canadian Human Rights Act] calls for an investigator to collect and review all of the information submitted by the parties to the complaint and to prepare a report for the Commissioners. The Commissioners do not play as active a role in the screening process,” Justice Mactavish wrote. Therefore, the Court concluded, “I have not been persuaded that the Commission disregarded the Federal Court’s direction in Jagadeesh #1.”
The Court also found that A.J. was provided with ample opportunity to present his case. Despite his assertions that the investigator cut his interview short and that page limits on submissions were unfair, the Court held that “the opportunities afforded to [A.J.]… were sufficient to satisfy the requirements of procedural fairness.”
On the allegation of bias, the Court determined there was no evidence to support A.J.’s claims that the investigator was biased or that the investigation was conducted improperly. The Court stated that A.J. “did not provide any concrete examples that would lead the Commission to find that the [investigation report] or investigation was ‘biased or unethical’ or that a reasonably informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, would draw such a conclusion.”
Regarding the substantive claims, the Court agreed with the Commission’s conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to support allegations of discrimination. The Court noted that CIBC had provided accommodations to A.J., including reduced hours and paid medical breaks. When medical assessments indicated no further accommodation was necessary, CIBC requested additional medical evidence if A.J. believed he still required accommodation, but he did not provide any. The Court emphasized that “an employer is required to provide a disabled employee with reasonable accommodation. It does not have to be perfect, and it does not have to be the employee’s preferred form of accommodation.”
On the claims of discrimination based on sexual orientation, the investigator found no evidence that A.J.’s sexual orientation was a factor in his treatment. Interviews with managers and staff did not substantiate his allegations that promotions were influenced by sexual orientation or that he was denied opportunities for this reason. The Court observed that the investigator’s findings were reasonable and that the Commission did not err in adopting them.
The Court concluded that the Commission’s decision was reasonable, stating: “It is… clear from the Commission’s decision precisely why it decided not to deal with [A.J.]’s human rights complaint, and its decision was justified, transparent and intelligible. It also falls within the range of possible, acceptable outcomes that are defensible in respect of the facts and law.”
The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to CIBC, fixed at $1,500.
For more information, see Jagadeesh v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2024 FCA 172 (CanLII).
