T-526-15 FEDERAL COURT BETWEEN: PAUL RITCHIE Applicant and MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENCE, CANADIAN FORCES AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondents MEMORANDUM OF FACT AND LAW The Deputy Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the Respondent, Attorney General of Canada, submits as follows: OVERVIEW 1. This application for judicial review stems from a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission to dismiss the Applicant?s claim of discrimination in his employment with the Department of National Defence. The Commission?s decision falls within the range of acceptable outcomes and is in compliance with the duty of procedural fairness. Therefore, this application for judicial review should be'dismissed. -1- PART I - FACTS On January 23, 2012, the Applicant filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission alleging adverse differential treatment by the Department of National Defence on the-basis of sexual orientation.? The complaint was referred to a Commission Investigator.2 During the investigation, the Investigator interviewed the Applicant several times.3 The Investigator also interviewed nine other individuals.4 The Applicant also provided documentary materials in support of his allegations.5 The Investigator completed the Investigation Report on December 11, 2014.5 The report considered the allegations made, the evidence provided through the discussions with the complainant and witnesses, and the documentary evidence.7 At the conclusion of the report, the InVestigator Complaint form, dated January 17, 2012, Applicant?s Record, vol 2, 530- 533 Letter from Renault, dated September 25, 2013, Applicant?s Record, vol 5, CHRC 97/1 Interview notes, dated October 16, 2014, Applicant?s Record, vol 6, CH RC 137/1-137/5; Interview notes, dated October 29, 2014, Applicant?s Record, vol 6, CHRC 154/1-154/2; Interview notes, dated November 20, 2014, Applicant?s Record, vol 7, CHRC 196/1 Investigation Report, dated December 11, 2014, Applicant?s Record, vol 2, pg 509 Applicant?s Record, vol 6, CHRC 118/1?118/302 Investigation Report, dated December 11, 2014, Applicant?s Record, vol 2, 507-528 Investigation Report, dated December 11, 2014, Applicant?s Record, vol 2, 507-528 -2- recommended that the complaint be dismissed pursuant to section as further investigation was not warranted.8 The Investigation Report was disclosed to the Applicant and the Respondent, and both were invited to make submissions up to 10 pages on the Investigator Report.Q The Applicant requested an extension of time to comment on the Investigation Report and was provided with an additional week.? On December 19, 2014, the Respondent provided its reply to the Investigation report, which stated it was in agreement with the report?s conclusion.11 No other details or submissions on the contents of the Investigation report were made.12 On January 12, 2015, Applicant?s counsel provided his client's seven pages of comments on the Investigation Report.13 On January 14, 2015, the Commission cross-disclosed the December 19, 2014 and January 12, 2015 submissions on the Investigation report to the Investigation Report, dated December 11, 2014, Applicant?s Record, vol 2, pg 528 Letters dated December 11, 2014, Applicant?s Record, vol 7, CH RC 224/1-225/2 . Letter dated December 17, 2014, Applicant?s Record, vol 7, CHRC 228/1; Letter dated December 18, 2014, Applicant?s Record, vol 232/1, pg 232/1 11 13 Letter dated December 19, 2014, Applicant?s Record, vol 2, pg 544 Letter dated December 19, 2014, Applicant?s Record, vol 2, pg 544 Letter dated January 12, 2015, Applicant?s Record, vol 7, pg CHRC 237/1- 237/11 -3- 11. 12. 13. 14. parties.14 Each party was advised it could submit up to 10 pages of comments on the opposing party?s submissions.15 The Commission?s letter of January 14, 2015 was provided to the Applicant in care of his counsel, who had sent the Applicant?s submissions on the Investigation report to the Commission.16 The Respondent provided its comments on the Applicant?s submissions by way of letter dated January 29, 2015.17 The Applicant did not provide any submissions. The Commission provided the Applicant (through letter to his counsel) with the Respondent?s January 29, 2015 submissions by letter dated February 4, 2015.18 This letter indicated the comments were being sent on an information basis only and that he was not required to do anything further at that time.19 On March 10, 2015, the Commission considered the Applicant?s complaint and determined that, in the circumstances, further inquiry of the complaint was not warranted.20 The Commission dismissed the complaint pursuant Letters dated January 14, 2015, Applicant's Record, vol 7, CHRC 240/1- 241/2 Letters dated January 14, 2015, Applicant?s Record, vol 7, CHRC 240/1- 241/2 Letters dated January 14, 2015, Applicant?s Record, vol 7, pg CHRC 240/1; Letter dated January 12, 2015, Applicant?s Record, vol 7, pg CHRC 237 Letter dated January 29, 2015, Applicant?s Record, vol 2, pg 545 Letter dated February 4, 2015, Applicant?s Record, vol 7, pg CH RC 249 Letter dated February 4, 2015, Applicant?s Record, vol 7, pg CH RC 249 Decision of the Commission, dated March 10, 2015, Applicant?s Record, vol 2. 998 501-502 to section of the Canadian Human Rights Act.21 15. The Applicant seeks judicial review of this decision.22 PART II ISSUES 16. The issues in this application for judicial review are: i) The scope of evidence on judicial review; ii) The standard of review; There was no breach of procedural fairness; and iv) The decision to dismiss the complaint was reasonable. 2? Decision of the Commission, dated March 10, 2015, Applicants Record, vol 2, 501-502; Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 3. 44(3), Respondent?s Record, tab 1 22 Notice of Application, dated April 8, 2015, Applicant?s Record, vol 1, 1-4 -5- PART Ill LAW AND ARGUMENT Issue 1: The scope of evidence on judicial review 17. 18. 19. On judicial review, the only material for consideration by the reviewing Court is the material which was before the decision?maker.23 Additional information not before the decision-maker is outside the scope of the judicial review and should not be considered.24 In this case, the Commission provided its Rule 318 record that contained - all documents before it at the time the decision under review was made.25 The Commission also provided a Supplementary Rule 318 Record that contained the investigation file.26 While the investigation file was not specifically before the Commission at the time it made its decision, the respondent acknowledges the ability of the Court to consider this information as part of its examination of the underlying Investigation Report. However, any information that was not before the Commission when it made the decision at issue or before the Commission as part of the investigation, falls outside the scope of this judicial review and should not 23 24 25 26- Alkoko vAttorney General of Canada, 2013 F0 1102, at paras 20, 27 and 29, Respondent?s Record, tab 2 Alkoko, supra, at paras 20, 27 and 29, Respondent?s Record, tab 2 Rule 318 Certi?cate, dated April 14, 2015, Applicant?s Record, vol 2, 505? 506 Letter dated May 26, 2015, Applicant?s Record, vol 2, 548-549; Rule 318 Supplementary Certi?cate, dated May 25, 2015, Applicant?s Record, vol 3, 550 -5- 20. 21. 22. be considered. The Applicant has provided such information in both his affidavit and in his memorandum of fact and law. The Applicant?s af?davit identifies and attaches documents as exhibits. However, the Applicant?s af?davit fails to confirm that these documents were before the Commission at the time it made its decision, or were provided to the Commission during the investigation. Therefore, they appear to be outside the scope of this judicial review, unless it can be shown they were before the Commission as part of the investigation or when the decision was made. Whether the documents were before the Commission can be determined by reviewing the Commission?s Rule 318 record and supplementary record. Some of the exhibits could not have been before the Commission, as they are dated after the decision was made on March 10, 2015. This includes exhibits 2A, 6D, TC, 7D and the cross-reference list in exhibit 8A. As these exhibits are outside the scope of the judicial review, they should be struck. On review of the Applicant?s affidavit, it appears that the following exhibits (as well as any that may have been missed through inadvertence) can be located in the Commission?s Rule 318 record or supplementary record and are properly before this Court: 0 Exhibit 2G can be found at CHRC 118/237-118/242 0 Exhibit 5A (the portion containing the email July 31, 2009 Ritchie to -7- 23. 24. 25. 26. Joudrey) can be found at CHRC 8/145 0 Exhibit SB (the portion containing the emails from September 23, 2009 and earlier) can be found at CHRC 118l69-118/72. 0 Exhibit 5G can be found at CHRC 008/195 0 Page 496 of exhibit 8A can be found at CHRC 118/228, although without the handwritten notes. The remaining exhibits in the Applicant?s affidavit should be struck as outside the scope of this judicial review, as it has not'been shown they were before the Commission. The Applicant?s memorandum of fact and law also is replete with statements that are not supported by statements in an af?davit or documents properly before this Court. This is particularly problematic when these statements are made with respect to conversations between the Applicant and the Investigator, given the arguments the Applicant has made with respect to the thoroughness of I the investigation. The only facts with respect to the conversations between the Applicant and the investigator that should be considered by this Court are those which are supported by the notes of the Investigator or other document. The following statements are advanced by the Applicant without an evidentiary reference and should be struck: -3- Paragraphs 18, 19, 34 and 49 in their entirety; and Portions of_the following paragraphs as indicated: Paragraphs 20 (last line; 22 (first two lines); 25 (first line); 27 (first 2 lines); 52 (first line); 54 (first line); 68 (first line); 70 (last line), 71 (first 2 lines); 74 (?rst 2 lines); 77 (first line); 82 (second line); 102 (?rst line) and 109 (?rst line) 27. While the Respondent recognizes that the Applicant is self?represented, this does not vary the requirements of the law.27 As a result, the documents and statements that are outside the scope of the judicial review application should not be considered by this Court. Issue 2: The standard of review 28. The decision of the Commission to dismiss a human rights complaint rather than refer it to a hearing before the Tribunal is reviewable on a standard of reasonableness.28 The reviewing Court will considerithe existence of justi?cation, transparency and ineligibility within the decision? making process and whether the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law.29 29. Procedural fairness issues, however, are reviewable on the correctness 27 Berrada WestJet, 2015 F0 539, at para 29, Respondent?s Record, tab 3 23 Canada (Attorney General) Davis, 2010 FCA 134, at para 3, Respondent?s Record, tab 4 29 Lamolinaire Bell Canada, 2012 FC 789, at para 22, Respondent?s Record, tab 5 -9- 30. 31. 32. standard.30 The arguments of the Applicant fail to indicate the appropriate standard of review applicable to the alleged errors in the decision. A review of the issues outlined at paragraph 3 of the Applicant?s memorandum of fact and. law indicate that the Applicant takes issue with the procedural fairness of the investigation and process followed by the Commission. Any issues with respect to procedural fairness are reviewable on the standard of correctness. To the extent the Applicant takes issue with the merits of the decision to dismiss his claim, this would be reviewable on the standard of reasonableness. The Applicant?s submissions do not demonstrate a reviewable error on either of these issues. Issue 3: There was no breach of procedural fairness 33. 34. The Commission complied with the requirements of procedural fairness throughout the investigation and the subsequent disclosure of the Investigation Report. In order to comply with procedural fairness, the Commission?s underlying 30 Davis, supra, at para 3, Respondent?s Record, tab 4 -10- 35. investigation must be neutral and thorough.31 The parties must also have an opportunity to respond to the allegations.32 Although the less deferential standard of correctness applies to allegations concerning procedural fairness, more must be demonstrated than a disagreement with how the investigation was conducted. The Applicant?s arguments fail to do this. The majority of the Applicant?s arguments are focused on the issue of procedural fairness with respect to the neutrality, thoroughness of the investigation, as well the opportunity to respond to the investigation report. The Investigation was neutral 36. 37. Neutrality requires the Investigator not be affected by bias and not approach the case with a closed mind?3 This standard of impartiality has been held to not be at the same level as required by a Court, given the non-adjudicative nature of the Commission?s screening function.34 The Court in Abi?Mansour discussed the requirements of neutrality: The burden of demonstrating either the existence of actual bias or of a reasonable apprehension of bias rests on the party alleging bias. As an allegation of bias is a very serious allegation since it challenges the integrity of the decision- maker whose decision is at issue, the burden of proof is high. Mere suspicion of boas is therefore not suf?cient to establish actual bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias. 31 32 Davis, supra, at para 6, Respondent?s Record, tab 4 Davis, supra, at para 6, Respondent?s Record, tab 4 33' Davis, supra, at para 6, Respondent?s Record, tab 4; Abi?Mansour'v Canada 34 Revenue Agency, 2015 F0 883, at para 51, Respondent?s Record, tab 6 Abi-Mansour, supra, at para 51, Respondent?s Record, tab 6 -11- 38. 39. 40. (R RDS, [1997] SCR 484, at para 112). Furthermore, considering the non-adjudicative nature of its screening function, the Commission is not bound by the same standard of impartiality as are the courts. The applicable test is therefore not whether there exists a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Investigator but whether the Investigator ?approached the case with a closed mind? (Sanderson Canada (Attorney General), 2006 FC 447, 290 FTR 83, at para 75; Gerrard Canada (Attorney General), 2010 FC 1152 at para 53; Gosal Canada (Attorney General), 2011 F0 570, at para 51).35 The Court went on to find that the Applicant had failed to support his allegation as there was no evidence beyond his bare allegations.36 Similarly, in Boldy v. Royal Bank, the Court rejected the Applicant's argument that the decision of the Investigator resulted from unconscious bias in favour of the Respondent, as it had no factual foundation.37 In the case at bar, there is also no factual basis for an argument that the Commission or the Investigator had any bias towards the Respondent. There is no support for an argument that the Commission and/or Investigator committed a reviewable error by not approaching the matter with the required neutrality. Finding in favour of a party is not in itself sufficient to demonstrate a bias towards that party. The Investigation was thorough 41. A judicial review for lack of thoroughness will only occur where an investigator missesobviously crucial evidence and when this omission 35 Abi?Mansour, supra, at para 51, Respondent?s Record, tab 6 35 Abi?Mansour, supra, at para 52, Respondent?s Record, tab 6 -12- 42. 43. 44. cannot be adequately addressed without subsequent submissions.38 Furthermore, if the applicant has the opportunity to bring any such omission to the attention of the Commission, the applicant must explain how this opportunity does not compensate for the omission.39 In this case, the Applicant disagrees with the findings of the Investigator based on his interpretation of the evidence. This is not sufficient to demonstrate there is critical information that was overlooked or missed by the Investigator. in any event, the Applicant also had the opportunity to make submissions on the investigation Report and bring any alleged omission to the attention of the Commission. The requirement of thoroughness also does not require the Investigator interview every witness proposed by the parties.40 An interview is only required where a reasonable person would expect evidence useful to the investigation would be gained as a result of the interview, or information not addressed by the evidence would be provided .41 Although the Applicant disagreed with the manner in which the interviews were conducted and disputes whether certain witnesses were neededBoldy Royal Bank, 2009 FCA 320, at para 15, Respondent?s Record, tab 7 Joshi Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2014 C. 552, at paras 78 and 83, Respondent?s Record, tab 8; Tsui Canada Post Corporation, 2010 F0 860, at para 32, Respondent?s Record, tab 9 - Joshi, supra, at paras 78 and 83, Respondent?s Record, tab 8; Tsui, supra, at para 32, Respondent?s Record, tab 9 Tinney Canada (Attorney General), 2010 FC 605, at para 28, Respondent?s Record, tab 10 Tinney, supra, at para 28, Respondent's Record, tab 10 -13- does not demonstrate any failure to interview a witness that has crucial information required for the fair determination of his case. 45. As noted by this Court, the fact an applicant is not in agreement with the conduct of the investigation is not sufficient to overturn the decision: There is almost always another witness who could have been interviewed or another question that might have been asked. But the Commission does not have unlimited resources and must be able to place reasonable limits over its investigative functions: see Herbert Canada, 2008 PC 969 (CanLll), 169 ACWS (3d) 393, at para 18. The test is not one of perfection nor does it require that every line of enquiry be exhausted. This investigation was thorough and more than suf?cient to determine what had happened. That Mr. Tutty is not in agreement with the outcome and can point to a different and more favourable interpretation of the evidence is not a basis forjudicial review.42 46. The Court has also held that the duty of thoroughness must be balanced with the realities of the Commission?s administrative workload.43 47. In the case at bar, the Applicant fails to point to any material errors or explain how these errors comprised the thoroughness of the investigation. The Applicant had an opportunity to respond 48. Procedural fairness also requires the parties be given a reasonable opportunity to comment on the case it is facing.44 In the case at bar, the Applicant was provided with ample opportunity to comment on the case he 42 Tutty Canada (Attorney General), 2011 FC 57, at para 29, Respondent?s . Record, tab 11 43 Tsui, supra, at para 32, Respondent?s Record, tab 9 44 Davis, supra, at para 6, Respondent?s Record, tab 4 -14- 49. 50. 51. 52. was advancing. Throughout the investigation, the Applicant had ample opportunity to provide the Investigator with his own statements (both written and oral), as well as substantial documentary information to support his allegations. Furthermore, the Applicant was provided with an opportunity to comment on the findings in the Investigation Report at the conclusion of the investigation.45 The fact that the Applicant was not permitted unlimited licence to re?argue his position on the evidence does not mean he was not afforded this opportunity. If there was crucial evidence that was missed or omitted by the Investigator, there is no reason this could not have been addressed in the 10 page submission to the Commission. However, the Applicant?s arguments were more in line with re-arguing the evidence, rather than on drawing the Commission?s attention to speci?c evidence that was not considered. This Court has considered the 10 page limit on comments with respect of an Investigation Report in other cases and has found that it does not breach rights of procedural fairness.45 The only requirement is that the limitation is applied to both parties. In this 45 Letter dated January 12, 2015, Applicant?s Record, vol 7, pg CHRC 237/1- 237/1 1 Phipps Canada Post Corporation, 2015 FC 1080, at paras 43?44, Respondent?s Record, tab 12; and Canadian National Railway Company Casler, 2015 F0 704, at para 29, Respondent?s Record, tab 13 -15- case, the Commission indicated to both the Applicant and the Respondent that the submissions on the Investigation Report were limited to 10 pages.47 Therefore, no breach of procedural fairness occurred in this regard. 53. There was also no breach of procedural fairness in the Commission?s correspondence of January 14, 2015, which provided the Applicant with an opportunity to comment on the Respondent?s December 19, 2014 reply to the Investigation Report. Contrary to the Applicant?s arguments, the Commission?s January 14, 2015 correspondence was not ?misdirected.? Rather, the correspondence was sent to the Applicant in care of his lawyer. Given that correspondence received on the Applicant?s behalf two days prior was from the Applicant?s counsel, there was no error in the Commission sending the next letter to the same counsel.48 54. In any event, the letter of the Respondent dated December 19, 2014 did not make substantive submissions on the Investigation Report. Rather, it simply stated its agreement with the Investigation Report.49 55. Lastly, the Applicant also erroneously argues that he was denied procedural fairness because he was not able to comment on the Respondent?s submissions of January 29, 2015 that were made in reply to 47 Letters dated December 11, 2014, Applicant?s Record, vol 7, CHRC 224/1225/2 - - - 43 Letter dated January 12, 2015, Applicant?s Record, vol 7, pg CHRC 237/1- 237/ 1 1 -15- his submissions on the Investigation Report. 56. This argument was rejected in Lafond Canada, 2015 PC 735. In Lafond, the applicant also argued that it was a breach of procedural fairness when he was not permitted to comment on the submissions made by the respondent in reply to his submissions on the investigation report.50 finding this argument had no merit, the Court stated: 57. Similarly, the Applicant?s argument in this case does not demonstrate a In the present case, procedural fairness required that the applicant know the allegations against him and have an opportunity to respond to them (Canada (Attorney General) Cherrier, 2005 F0 505 [Chern'er] at para 22; Alkoka, above at para 67). Moreover, "[t]he screening process of the Commission is not adversarial. The case the applicant must meet is set out in the Report" (Khapar Air Canada, 2014 F0 138 [Khapar] at para 56). In the case at bar, the applicant was aWare of the report's findings and of the investigator's recommendation. He had the opportunity to respond to the report to address any gaps or bring to the investigator's attention any important missing evidence (Alkoka, above at para 68). A response to the respondent's representations was therefore not necessary.51 breach of procedural fairness. 58. Throughout the process, the Applicant was afforded an opportunity to comment on the case he had to meet. Furthermore, he was provided with a thorough and neutral investigation. The fact he does not agree with the outcome is insuf?cient to demonstrate a breach of procedural fairness. 49 Letter dated January 12, 2015, Applicant?s Record, vol 7, pg CHRC 237/1- 237/11 -17- Issue 4: The decision to dismiss the complaint was reasonable 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. The Commission?s decision to dismiss the complaint was reasonable and was in accordance with the Commission?s legislative authority. Under ss 43(1) of the Act, the Commission has authority to designate an Investigator to look into a complaint.52 At the" conclusion of the investigation, the Investigator is required to submit the resulting Investigation Report to the Commission.53 On reviewing an Investigation Report, the Commission has the authority to refer a complaint to a hearing before the Tribunal, if it feels is it warranted in the circumstances, or it can dismiss a complaint, pursuant to section 44(3)(b) of the Act.54_ In the case at bar, the Commission?s decision was to adopt the recommendation of the Investigation Report and dismiss the complaint pursuant to ss In so doing, the Commission acted within its legislative authority. As the Commission?s decision adopted the recommendations in the Investigation Report, the Report forms part of the Commission?s reasons 50 5 1 52 53 Lafond Canada, 2015 PC 735, at paras 3 and 20, Respondent?s Record, tab Lafond, supra, at para 21, Respondent?s Record, tab 14 Canadian Human Rights Act, supra, 35. 43(1), Respondent?s Record, tab 1 Canadian Human Rights Act, supra, ss. 44(1), Respondent?s Record, tab 1 ?54* Canadian Human Rights Act, supra, ss. 44(3), Respondent?s Record, tab 1 55 Decision of the Commission, dated March 10, 2015, Applicant?s Record, vol 2. 501-502 -18.. 64. 65. and is examined when determining the reasonableness of the Commission's decision.56 The Applicant has not demonstrated speci?c evidence that would cast doubt on the reasonableness of this decision. Rather, the Applicant?s arguments appear to be premised on the contention that the review of the facts should have resulted in a different conclusion from the Investigator. However, not receiving a positive decision is an insuf?cient basis for a finding that evidence or submissions were not considered. Insofar as the Applicant argues against the reasonableness'of the merits of the decision, there is no reviewable error. Although the Applicant may not agree with the conclusions reached by the investigator and the Commission, this disagreement is not sufficient to demonstrate the decision was not reasonable and falls outside the realm of possible, acceptable outcomes. The Attorney General of Canada is the appropriate Respondent 66. The parties who are appropriate respondents in an application for judicial review are speci?ed in Rule 303(1) of the Federal Courts Rules: Respondents Subject to subsection (2), an applicant shall name as a respondent every person 55 Abi?Mansour, supra, at para 47, Respondent's Record, tab 6 -19- directly affected by the order sought in the application, other than a tribunal in respect of which the application is brought; or required to be named as a party under an Act of Parliament pursuant to which the application is brought. 67. If there are no persons mentioned under section 303(1), the appropriate respondent becomes the Attorney General of Canada, pursuant to Rule 303(2): (2) Application for judicial review Where in an application for judicial review there are no persons that can be names under subsection (1), the applicant shall name the Attorney General of Canada as a respondent. 68. Furthermore, government departments are not legal entities and cannot properly be named as parties in a judicial review application.57 Therefore, only the Attorney General of Canada should be named as the appropriate Respondent. 69. This change does not in any way affect the underlying merits of this application. 57 Gravel Canada (Attorney General of Canada), 2011 F0 832, at para 6, Respondent?s Record, tab 15 -20- PART IV ORDER SOUGHT 70. The Respondent respectfully requests this application for judicial review be dismissed with costs. ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. DATED at Halifax, Nova Scotia this 8th day of January 2016. William F. Pentney, Q.C. - Deputy Attorney General of Canada Department of Justice Suite 1400 -- 5251 Duke Street Halifax, NS B3J 1P3 Counsel for the Respondent TO: REGISTRAR FEDERAL COURT AND TO: PAUL D. RITCHIE Applicant, on his own behalf -21- PART LIST OF AUTHORITIES Legislation 1. Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6, 3. 43(1), 44 Jurisprudence Alkoko Attorney General of Canada, 2013 F0 1102 Berrada WestJet, 2015 F0 539 Canada (Attorney General) Davis, 2010 FCA 134 Lamolinaire Bell Canada, 2012 F0 789 Abi?Mansour Canada Revenue Agency, 2015 883 Boldy Royal Bank, 2009 CA 320 Joshi Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2014 F0 552 Tsui Canada Post Corporation, 2010 F0 860 10. Tinney Canada (Attorney General), 2010 PC 605 1 1. Tutty Canada (Attorney General), 201 1 FC 57 12. Phipps Canada Post Corporation, 2015 FC 1080 13. Canadian National Railway Company Casler, 2015 704 14. Lafond Canada, 2015 F0 735 15. Gravel Canada (Attorney General of Canada), 201 1 F0 832 -22-