ARCHIVED - Canadian Human Rights Tribunal

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page

This page has been archived.

Section I - Departmental Overview

Chairperson's Message

The number of complaints referred by the Canadian Human Rights Commission for inquiry by the Tribunal decreased slightly again in 2006 from the record highs we experienced in 2003 and 2004.

I remarked last year that one of the significant challenges facing the Tribunal was the number of parties appearing before us without legal representation. These complainants are often people of modest means who are not able to afford legal representation. To address this difficulty, the Tribunal implemented a new system of case management in 2005-2006.

At a very early stage in the inquiry process, a teleconference is conducted by a member of the Tribunal with all of the parties and/or their counsel. During the teleconference, the member explains the Tribunal's pre-hearing and hearing processes, and what is required from the parties. With agreement of the parties, the member also sets time frames for document and witness disclosure, as well as for hearing dates. In addition to explaining the Tribunal's hearing process, case management ensures that complaints are heard and decided within a timely period.

In 2006-2007, the Tribunal continued to make adjustments to its new case management process, its automated case management system, the Tribunal Toolkit, which was installed last year to enhance information retrieval efficiency and data integrity. We also completed a revision to the Tribunal's publication What Happens Next? Guide to the Tribunal Process, which is designed to help unrepresented parties better understand the Tribunal process.

The Tribunal remains well positioned to continue to offer Canadians a full, fair and timely hearing process.

J. Grant Sinclair

Management Representation Statement

I submit, for tabling in Parliament, the 2006-2007 Departmental Performance Report for the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

This document has been prepared based on the reporting principles contained in the Guide for the Preparation of Part III of the 2006-2007 Estimates: Reports on Plans and Priorities (RPP) and Departmental Performance Reports (DPR).

• It adheres to the specific reporting requirements outlined in the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat guidance;
• It is based on the department's approved Strategic Outcome and Program Activity Architecture that were approved by the Treasury Board;
• It presents consistent, comprehensive, balanced and reliable information;
• It provides a basis of accountability for the results achieved with the resources and authorities entrusted to it; and
• It reports finances based on approved numbers from the Estimates and the Public Accounts of Canada.

J. Grant Sinclair
Chairperson

Summary Information

Raison D'être

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (the Tribunal) is a quasi-judicial body that hears complaints of discrimination referred by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the Commission) and determines whether the activities complained of violate the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA). The purpose of the CHRA is to protect individuals from discrimination and to promote equal opportunity. The Tribunal also decides cases brought under the Employment Equity Act (EEA) and, pursuant to section 11 of the CHRA, determines allegations of wage disparity between men and women doing work of equal value in the same establishment.

Total Financial Resources in 2006–2007 (Millions of Dollars)

Planned Spending	Total Authorities	Actual Spending
4.3	4.6	4.6

Total Human Resources in 2006–2007

Planned	Actual	Difference
26	26	-

Departmental Priorities: Program Activity: Public Hearings under the Canadian Human Rights

Strategic Outcome: Canadians have equal access to the opportunities that exist in our society through the fair and equitable adjudication of human rights cases that are brought before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
Alignment to Government of Canada outcomes: inclusive society that promotes linguistic duality and diversity.
			2006-2007
Priority No. and Type	Expected Result	Performance Status	Planned Spending	Actual Spending
1. Monitor Tribunal inquiry performance targets.	Performance measures confirmed. Efficiency of the inquiry process.	met, ongoing	N/A	N/A
2. Results-based Management Accountability Framework (RMAF).	The Tribunal has developed its RMAF and is monitoring Modern Comptrollership practices.	partially met, ongoing	$25,000	N/A
3. Management Accountability Framework assessment.	Modern public service management that fully supports results for Canadians.	new, ongoing	$15,000	N/A
4. Align Tribunal's record management systems with government information management policy.	Implementation of the government standard Records, Documents and Information Management System (RDIMS).	The RDIMS was implemented within the timelines established.	$25,000	$6,000

Departmental Performance

The Tribunal's mission is to better ensure that Canadians have equal access to the opportunities that exist in our society through fair and equitable adjudication of the human rights cases brought before it. Pursuit of that goal requires the Tribunal to determine human rights disputes in a timely, well-reasoned manner that is consistent with the law.

During fiscal year 2006-2007, the Tribunal's workload continued to be extremely heavy. Although the volume of new complaint referrals continued to ease through 2005 and 2006, the combined average of cases received since 2003 represents a 145% increase over the Tribunal's previous seven-year average of 44.7 cases per year (see Table 1). In addition, the evidence and issues raised in complaints continue to be increasingly more complex than in the past. These are factors that play heavily on the timelines targeted by the Tribunal for conducting inquiries into complaints. Despite these pressures, the Tribunal's performance during the period under review remained very productive, both from the perspective of an efficient inquiry process and from the viewpoint of fair and impartial disposition of complaints.

Table 1. New Cases, 1996 to 2006*

	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	Totals
Human Rights Tribunals/ Panels	15	23	22	37	70	83	55	130	139	99	70	743
Employment Equity Review Tribunals appointed	0	0	0	0	4	4	0	0	0	0	0	8
Totals	15	23	22	37	74	87	55	130	139	99	70	751
* Pursuant to the Canadian Human Rights Act, complaints before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal are referred by the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal rendered a total of 59 decisions and 129 rulings during the period from 2003 through 2006. In 2006 alone, the Tribunal released 13 decisions and 44 rulings.

In 2004-2005, the Tribunal re-examined its inquiry procedures when it adapted its active case management model to the way in which the inquiry process was conducted. That model, now referenced in the Tribunal's What Happens Next? guide, was implemented during 2005-2006 and revised in 2006-2007. Our experience to-date suggests that both the parties and the Tribunal benefit greatly from this new approach, with fewer procedural disputes at hearing and greater efficiency in the presentation of evidence and witnesses. Anecdotal evidence continues to suggest that this new approach is engendering savings to both the parties and the Tribunal by streamlining hearings that would otherwise be much longer.

In cases where the parties are inclined to resolve complaints without a full hearing, the Tribunal offers a one-day mediation, where its experienced members meet with the parties. As mediations are completely voluntary, the resulting settlements translate into concrete results for all parties concerned, at a reduced cost. In fiscal year 2006-2007, 27 of the 39 mediations conducted by Tribunal members resulted in settlements. In cases where a mediated settlement cannot be reached, or mediation is declined by the parties, the Tribunal's new case management approach ensures the continuation of the inquiry process without delay, and that the parties are afforded timely access to the Tribunal's adjudicative process.

Operational Environment

Hearings before the Tribunal are more adversarial, with motions and objections ever more frequent. Although the Tribunal has developed pre-hearing disclosure procedures to ensure fair and orderly hearings, their efficiency is compromised by missed deadlines, requests for adjournments and vehemently contested issues. Hearings on the merits are longer and increasingly complex and parties appear uncertain of how to focus on the specific issues requiring determination. In such instances, the Tribunal intervenes by conducting case management conferences, which allow the Tribunal to guide the parties toward an approach that is predictable, streamlined and fair, thus ensuring hearings that are consistent with the expeditious process contemplated by the CHRA.

Faced with its highest-ever volume of new complaints during the three calendar years of 2003 through 2005, and given the complexities described above, the Tribunal cannot reasonably expect that all cases can be completed within its 12-month target period. However, based on procedural adjustments made in 2003-2004 and given the active case management practices initiated in 2005-2006, the Tribunal remains optimistic of its ability to minimize the impact of delays where the 12-month target is concerned. While the Tribunal is careful not to exert undue pressure on the parties when imposing constraints, it acknowledges that a more proactive approach to case management will continue to benefit the parties through a balanced and efficient use of available resources.

Context

Jurisdiction

The Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) applies to federal government departments and agencies, Crown corporations, chartered banks, railways, airlines, telecommunicationsand broadcasting organizations, as well as shipping and inter-provincial transportation companies. Complaints may relate to discrimination in employment or in the provision of goods, services, facilities and accommodation that are customarily available to the public. The CHRA prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, disability or conviction for which a pardon has been granted. Complaints of discrimination based on sex include allegations of wage disparity between men and women doing work of equal value in the same establishment.

In 1996, the Tribunal's responsibilities were expanded to include the adjudication of complaints under the Employment Equity Act (EEA), which applies to all federal government departments and federally-regulated private sector employers with more than 100 employees. Employment Equity Review Tribunals are created, as needed, with members of the Tribunal, and usually relate to the review of a direction given by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to an employer with respect to an employment equity plan. After hearing evidence and arguments, the Tribunal may confirm, rescind or amend the Commission's direction. Since the first such Tribunal in February 2000, only seven other applications have been made, since 2002-2003 (see Table 1). To date the parties have reached a settlement before hearing has commenced in all cases.

Parliament's passage of amendments to the CHRA in 1998 provided for a more highly qualified Tribunal, which we believe is generating a more consistent body of jurisprudence through its decisions and written rulings. In the years since the amendments were passed, we continue to perceive a greater acceptance of the Tribunal's interpretation of the CHRA by the reviewing courts. This development is expanded upon in Section II of this report (see Table 3). Eventually, this acceptance will benefit both complainants and respondents, and will ultimately result in more timely, fair and equitable disposition of complaints, at a reduced cost to Canadians.

Risk Management Issues

As noted in previous departmental performance reports, the Tribunal continues to face risks in the following major areas: workload and the increasing number of unrepresented parties. A brief synopsis of these risks and what the Tribunal has done to address them follows.

The number of complaints referred to the Tribunal has risen dramatically since 2002, when only 55 cases were received. In 2003, 130 new complaint cases were referred and, in 2004, that number rose again to 139 cases. The volume of complaint referrals dropped slightly to 99 in 2005, and 70 in 2006, but this volume of referrals remains significantly higher than the annual average of 44.7 cases received by the Tribunal from 1996 through 2002.

In addition to the high volume of complaints, the Tribunal is also faced with the challenge of conducting an adjudicative process in which many complainants are not represented by legal counsel. The Canadian Human Rights Commission's participation at hearings, while helpful to all parties, has reduced considerably since 2004. As such complainants without representation often conduct their cases and lead evidence by calling witnesses to prove allegations with limited legal guidance – requiring Tribunal members and staff to spend considerable time explaining the mediation and inquiry processes. These cases generally require additional case management at the pre- hearing stage to ensure that fairness is not jeopardized.

The Tribunal has made several changes in response to these circumstances. The practice of mediation was reintroduced in March 2003, despite their having been discontinued for reasons that are still relevant, as explained in past reports. The Tribunal also adjusted operating procedures to better meet the needs of unrepresented parties; revised initial correspondence to the parties to ensure better understanding of the information required to process a complaint; and adopted a more active approach to keep the process on track and to ensure parties meet deadlines.

Although procedures continue to be adjusted, the large increase in workload combined with the challenges of dealing with unrepresented parties places considerable stress on the Tribunal's ability to meet its targeted timeframes for concluding complaint inquiries. While the delays are not excessive, in the majority of cases the Tribunal considers any decline in service to our clients to be unacceptable. The Tribunal continues to monitor its workload and procedures closely, and is making adjustments where necessary to ensure that the quality of its services is not compromised.

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page