Section 1 Overview
1.1 Chairperson’s Message
In 2004, the Tribunal reached its highest ever volume of 139 complaint referrals. That workload began to return to more historically typical levels with 70 complaint cases referred in 2006. But even as its caseload stabilizes, the Tribunal is dealing with cases that are becoming increasingly complex. As well, the number of lay complainants who appear before the Tribunal who represent themselves has increased significantly. The Tribunal has met the challenges posed by these changes with the implementation in 2005 of a case management system. The Tribunal has also re-introduced mediation.
As an alternative dispute mechanism to the Tribunal’s inquiry process, mediation continues to achieve an impressive level of success, assisting parties in reaching settlements faster and in a less costly manner.
While these measures have been successful in helping the Tribunal ensure that complaint inquiries are conducted expeditiously and informally, as prescribed by the Canadian Human Rights Act, additional challenges remain to be addressed.
In the area of human rights, one size certainly does not fit all. For example, some complaints occur within highly structured organizations such as large companies and federal government departments. Others emanate from less rigid organizational environments that function within a different cultural milieu, such as remote northern communities. The pro forma template of case management requires adjustment to deal with these varied circumstances.
The Tribunal continues to embrace advances in technology that suit its needs. It has recently implemented a digital voice recording system, ending the costly and time-consuming practice of producing transcripts of its proceedings. The Tribunal has also put into place an electronic filing system for all of its complaint case files.
The Tribunal remains current, cost-efficient, flexible and responsive to its mandate under the Canadian Human Rights Act.
J. Grant Sinclair
1.2 Management Representation Statement
| Management Representation Statement |
|---|
|
I submit for tabling in Parliament, the 2008–09 Report on Plans and Priorities (RPP) for the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. This document has been prepared based on the reporting principles contained in the Guide to the Preparation of Part III of the 2008–09 Estimates: Reports on Plans and Priorities and Departmental Performance Reports:
Name: J. Grant Sinclair |
1.3 Raison d’être
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is a quasi-judicial body that hears complaints of discrimination referred by the Canadian Human Rights 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 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.
1.4 Organizational Information
Role of the Tribunal
In hearing complaints under the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) and the Employment Equity Act (EEA), the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal considers matters concerning employment or the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation. The CHRA makes it an offence for anyone to discriminate against any individual or group on 11 grounds:
- race;
- national or ethnic origin;
- colour;
- religion;
- age;
- sex (includes pay equity, pregnancy, childbirth and harassment, although harassment can apply to all grounds);
- marital status;
- family status;
- sexual orientation;
- disability (can be mental/physical and includes disfigurement and past, existing or perceived alcohol or drug dependence); or
- conviction for which a pardon has been granted.
The Tribunal’s jurisdiction covers matters that come within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada, including those concerning federal government departments and agencies, as well as banks, airlines and other federally regulated employers and providers of goods, services, facilities and accommodation. The Tribunal holds public hearings to inquire into complaints of discrimination. Based on evidence and the law (often conflicting and complex), it determines whether discrimination has occurred. If it has, the Tribunal determines the appropriate remedy to compensate the victim of the discriminatory practice, as well as policy adjustments necessary to prevent future discrimination.
The majority of discriminatory acts that the Tribunal adjudicates are not malicious. Many conflicts arise from long-standing practices, legitimate concerns by employers, or conflicting interpretations of statutes and precedents. The role of the Tribunal is to discern the positions of the parties and establish fair and appropriate “rules” to resolve the dispute.
The Tribunal may inquire only into complaints under the CHRA that are referred to it by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, usually after a full investigation by the Commission. The Commission resolves most cases without the Tribunal’s intervention. Cases referred to the Tribunal generally involve complicated legal issues, new human rights issues, unexplored areas of discrimination or multi-faceted evidentiary complaints that must be heard under oath, especially in cases with conflicting evidence that involve issues of credibility.
The Tribunal is not an advocate for the CHRA; that is the role of the Commission. The Tribunal has a statutory mandate to apply the Act based solely on the evidence presented and on current case law. If there is no evidence to support the allegation, then the Tribunal must dismiss the complaint.
Our Organizational Structure
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is a small, permanent organization comprising a full-time Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson and up to 13 full- or part-time members (see Figure 1.1). Under the statute, both the Chairperson and the Vice-Chairperson must have been members of the bar for more than 10 years.
Figure 1.1: The Tribunal’s Organization Chart
Members
To be eligible for appointment by the Governor in Council, all members of the Tribunal are required to have expertise in, and sensitivity to, human rights issues. In addition, members attend regular meetings for training and briefing sessions on such topics as decision-writing techniques, evidence and procedure, and in-depth analysis of human rights issues. Throughout their three- or five-year terms, all Tribunal members are given opportunities for professional development.
Registry Operations
Administrative responsibility for the Tribunal rests with the Registry. It plans and arranges hearings, acts as liaison between the parties and Tribunal members, and provides administrative support. The Registry is also accountable for the operating resources allocated to the Tribunal by Parliament.
Corporate, Financial, Legal and Information Technology Services
Tribunal and Registry operations are supported by Corporate Services, Financial Services, Legal Services and Information Technology Services.
Corporate Services provides support to the Tribunal in facilities management, communications, materiel management, procurement of goods and services, information management, security, reception and courier services. It also assists the Registrar’s Office in the development and implementation of government-wide initiatives, such as workforce representativeness, capacity-building, linguistic rights, stewardship and accountability.
Financial Services provides the Tribunal with accounting services, financial information and advice.
Legal Services provides the Tribunal with legal information, advice and representation.
The main priority of Information Technology Services is to ensure that the Tribunal has the technology required to perform efficiently and effectively. The section advises Registry staff and members on the use of corporate systems and technology available internally and externally, and offers training. The section is also responsible for ensuring system compliance with government-wide technology policies and for ensuring system integrity, security and continuity.
Human resources services are contracted out to Public Works and Government Services Canada.
Funding
The Tribunal is funded by annual appropriations from Parliament through a program expenditures vote for hearings and administrative operating expenditures. Main reference levels are not usually sufficient to cover costs for cases requiring inordinately long hearings, such as cases to determine allegations of wage disparity between men and women doing work of equal value in the same establishment (i.e., pay equity cases); Treasury Board submissions are prepared as required to obtain additional funding for these cases.
| 2008–09 | ||
|---|---|---|
| (millions of dollars) | New Program Activity Hearings of complaints before the Tribunal | Total |
| Old Program Activity Public hearings under the Canadian Human Rights Act |
$4.4 | $4.4 |
| Old Program Activity Review directions given under the Employment Equity Act |
$0 | $0 |
| Vote or Statutory Item | Truncated Vote or Statutory Wording | 2008–09 Main Estimates |
2007–08 Main Estimates |
|---|---|---|---|
| 15 | Program expenditures | 4.0 | 3.9 |
| (S) | Contributions to employee benefit plans | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| Total Tribunal | 4.4 | 4.3 |
Note: The figures for 2007–08 and beyond include a reduction of $10,000 each year for procurement savings as directed by Treasury Board Secretariat.
1.5 Summary Information
| 2008–09 | 2009–10 | 2010–11 |
|---|---|---|
| 4.4 | 4.4 | 4.4 |
| 2008–09 | 2009–10 | 2010–11 |
|---|---|---|
| 26 | 26 | 26 |
The Tribunal’s priorities are largely dictated by its single strategic outcome:
Individuals have equal access, as determined by the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Employment Equity Act, to fair and equitable adjudication of human rights and employment equity cases that are brought before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
We will therefore continue to do what we do well: provide Canadians with a fair and efficient inquiry process through the adjudication of human rights disputes. Tribunal members will provide well-reasoned decisions and, where appropriate, order suitable remedies for those who have suffered discrimination. The Tribunal’s decisions will also provide guidance and direction to employers and service providers on the development of policies and practices that are consistent with respect to human rights.
In addition to its usual business, the Tribunal plans to pursue the management priorities summarized in Table 1.4.
| Type | Expected Results | Planned Spending | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008–09 | 2009–10 | 2010–11 | |||
| Priority 1 | |||||
| Monitor the Tribunal’s inquiry performance targets. | Ongoing | Performance measurements confirmed. An efficient inquiry process. | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Priority 2 | |||||
| Strengthen the Tribunal’s human resources management capacity. | New | Human resources plan fully integrated with the Tribunal’s business planning | $20,000 | N/A | N/A |
| Priority 3 | |||||
| Integrate the Tribunal’s technology management practices and policies. | New | Increased integration of the Tribunal’s technology suite to enhance its information and data reporting capacity. | $25,000 | $25,000 | $50,000 |
1.6 Tribunal Plans and Priorities
| Planned activity | Result and time line |
|---|---|
|
Monitor the Tribunal’s case management initiative for effectiveness and efficiency. |
Measures that appropriately assess the timeliness, effectiveness and efficiency of the Tribunal’s inquiry process are confirmed or re-established, by March 2010. |
The Tribunal has adjusted its three leading targets for ensuring the timely and effective delivery of its inquiry process:
- begin hearings within six months of receiving a complaint referral in 70 percent of cases (down from 80 percent);
- render decisions within four months of the close of a hearing in 80 percent of cases (down from 90); and
- conclude inquiries within 12 months of referral in 70 percent of cases (down from 80).
Statistics compiled for 2006 and 2007 indicate that the Tribunal has continued to face difficulty achieving the previously higher percentage target levels, largely because of three main factors. First, the Tribunal has experienced an unusually high workload since 2003; second, a significant number of complainants appearing before the Tribunal are without legal representation; and third, the increased level of complexity in human rights cases often demands a more patient approach of negotiation between the parties in place of expediency.
The recent heavy workload is a holdover from a tripling of referrals experienced in 2003 and 2004. From 1996 to 2002, the Tribunal opened an average of 44 case files per year based on human rights complaints referred by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. In 2003, the number of new cases rose dramatically to 130 and increased further in 2004 to 139, before dropping to 99 in 2005, 70 in 2006 and 80 (estimated) in 2007. Over the next few years, Commission representatives expect the volume of complaint referrals to remain at current levels, or perhaps decrease slightly.
The Tribunal’s case management model was developed and implemented in early 2005. This process comprises a series of teleconferences with a Tribunal member who instructs the parties in how to meet their pre-hearing obligations, such as disclosure, particulars of the complaint, and the identification of witnesses and experts. The member’s intervention at this stage also helps to resolve preliminary issues that might otherwise be missed by the parties or misunderstood by lay litigants, and thus would have consumed additional time at the more costly hearing stage.
Complaint inquiries conducted during 2006 and 2007 demonstrate that many human rights cases raise factual and/or legal issues of such complexity and importance that a rush to hearing is neither feasible nor desirable. Complaints sometimes also arise from settings, such as remote northern communities, that are not well situated, nor perhaps well suited, to the pressures of an expedited adjudication process. While the Tribunal remains steadfast in striving to commence hearings within six months and conclude inquiries within 12 months, the increased level of complexity in complaint cases has had a significant negative impact on meeting previous performance targets. Although hearings are now unfolding more efficiently since the introduction of the case management system, the Tribunal nevertheless recognizes that parties sometimes need more time and the additional intervention of a Tribunal member to get to hearing.
The Tribunal has also had more difficulty meeting previously higher percentage targets for rendering decisions within a four-month period, as noted in its Performance Report for the period ending March 31, 2007. Again, this is a direct result of the heavy workload inherited from 2003 and 2004. It is also a consequence of the heavier burden experienced by the Tribunal’s members since 2003, where directions or rulings are more frequently required to resolve complex legal disputes before getting to hearing.
To attempt to meet its adjusted targets for completing inquiries, the Tribunal will continue to monitor its case management procedures to maximize their effectiveness and efficiency. It will also introduce flexibility into the process to help parties resolve the complaint or get to hearing within the earliest possible time frame.
| Planned activity | Result and time line |
|---|---|
|
Review management policies and practices at the Tribunal for their adequacy in supporting the government’s public service renewal initiative. |
The Tribunal’s human resources management policies and practices are fully aligned with the government’s public service renewal initiative, and integrated with the Tribunal’s business planning, by March 2009. |
Over the past two years the Tribunal has stayed closely in step with the government’s human resources management modernization initiative. It has established a functioning labour-management consultation committee and an informal conflict management consultation system, and taken measures to strengthen both. The required staffing policies under the Public Service Modernization Act and the Public Service Employment Act are also in place, as well as a human resources plan. In addition to these policies and practices — and despite its micro-agency size (26 FTEs) — the Tribunal recognizes the need to strengthen its strategic human resources capacity to ensure that its human resources remain relevant, accountable, results-focused, effective and competitive within the context of a respected, professional and forward-looking public service.
The Tribunal has already begun to address the challenges identified by the Clerk of the Privy Council in his Fourteenth Annual Report to the Prime Minister on the Public Service of Canada. A learning framework is currently under development and, over the next two fiscal years, a values and ethics statement will be developed specific to the Tribunal that integrates the Tribunal’s business planning with its human resources plan. The Tribunal will also review its human resources policy suite to ensure it is up to date, as well as further engage employees during the planning process to help reinforce the efficiency and effectiveness of the organization.
The Tribunal holds no illusions as to its limited capacity for helping to shape the public service. It will nevertheless seek out every possible opportunity to work with and contribute to other government departments and agencies, especially those of like size and mandate, to assist in meeting the government-wide challenge for public service renewal.
| Planned activity | Result and time line |
|---|---|
|
Enhance the Tribunal’s information management capacity by developing a strategy for fully integrating the Tribunal’s technology management products, practices and policies. |
The Tribunal’s technology suite is fully integrated to enhance its information and data reporting capacity, by March 2010. |
The Tribunal has made great strides in adapting to the rapid advancements of technology. For example, it now has in place an automated system for managing its operational case files called the Tribunal Toolkit. It has introduced a digital voice recording system to replace more costly stenographic services at hearings and enhance transcript quality. The Tribunal’s client distribution system is now automated and enhancements have been introduced to other communication technology tools, such as the Internet and the Tribunal’s intranet.
The Tribunal has also recognized that managing information is a crucial element of all federal government activities and an important part of the Tribunal’s responsibilities. The government’s Framework for the Management of Information (FMI) provides strategic direction and practical guidance. It describes why and how to integrate the management of information with a wide range of Government of Canada activities to improve business delivery, legal and policy compliance, citizen access, and accountability. The Tribunal has enhanced its FMI compliance capability by implementing the government’s Records, Documents and Information Management System (RDIMS) for management of its corporate records. RDIMS also offers records imaging, full-text indexing search and retrieval, workflow, an on-line document viewer, and reporting capabilities.
In 2006–07 the Tribunal developed and implemented an Information Management Security Policy and a Business Continuity Plan. These measures represented an important step toward the Tribunal’s plans for attaining certification by March 2008 under the government’s Management of Information Technology Security Standard.
In 2008–09, the Tribunal’s full technology suite will undergo a review from which it will develop a strategy for integrating its technology management products, practices and policies. To ensure its technology suite meets the highest possible performance standards, and to realize every possible advantage from available technology advancements, the Tribunal will continue to search out sharing opportunities and interact closely with government policy centres and other government departments and agencies. These efforts will enhance the Tribunal’s capacity for conducting inquiries with optimal efficiency and, ultimately, for the delivery of best possible results for Canadians.
- Date modified: