Canadian Human Rights Tribunal

Decision Information

Communications, Energy and Paperworks Union of Canada v. Bell Canada

Collection Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Date 2005-01-25
Neutral citation 2005 CHRT 3
File number(s) T503/2098
Decision-maker(s) Deschamps, Pierre; Sinclair, Grant, Q.C.
Decision type Ruling

Decision Content

CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL TRIBUNAL CANADIEN DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

COMMUNICATIONS, ENERGY AND PAPERWORKERS

UNION OF CANADA AND FEMMES-ACTION

Complainants

- and -
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Commission

- and -
BELL CANADA

Respondent

RULING ON ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
RE DEFAULT INTEREST RATE

PANEL: J. Grant Sinclair
Pierre Deschamps

2005 CHRT 3
2005/01/25

[1] Under s. 53(4) of the CHRA, when making an order for compensation, the Tribunal may include an award of interest at a rate and for a period it considers appropriate. This however is subject to Rule 9(12) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, which provides that, unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal, an award of interest shall be at a specified rate and for a specified period. In this ruling, we refer to this as the default interest rate.

[2] CEP will propose (assuming a finding of liability) that the Tribunal make an award of interest different from the default interest rate. CEP also proposes to call Dr. Lawrence Gould to give expert evidence relating to what the appropriate interest rate and interest period should be for any award of interest.

[3] Bell has brought a motion asking that the Tribunal not receive Dr. Gould's evidence. Bell argues that this evidence is not necessary for the Tribunal to determine an appropriate award of interest.

[4] For the purpose of its argument on the motion, Bell seeks to introduce as evidence the fact that the Tribunal, when amending the default interest rate in 2004, did not consult any expert opinion. Bell's argument will be that it was not then necessary to have expert assistance and therefore, it is not necessary now.

[5] For Bell's motion, the Tribunal must decide the question of whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, Dr. Gould's evidence is necessary in determining an award of interest.

[6] In our opinion, the fact that an expert was not consulted when setting the default interest rate for Rule 9(12) is of no assistance in determining this question. That fact tells the Tribunal nothing about whether Dr. Gould's proposed expert evidence is necessary in this case. It has no probative value.

[7] Accordingly, Bell's request to introduce this fact into evidence is denied.

Signed by

J. Grant Sinclair, Chairperson

Signed by

OTTAWA, Ontario

Pierre Deschamps, Member

January 25, 2005

PARTIES OF RECORD

TRIBUNAL FILE:

T503/2098

STYLE OF CAUSE:

Communications, Energy and Paperworks Union of Canada, Femmes-Action
v. Bell Canada

DATE AND PLACE OF HEARING:

Ottawa, Ontario
January 24, 2005

RULING OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED:

January 25, 2005

APPEARANCES:

Peter Engelmann

For Communications, Energy and
Paperworkers Union of Canada

Andrew Raven
K.E. Ceilidh Snider

For the Canadian Human Rights Commisson

Peter Mantas
Guy Dufort

For Bell Canada
 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.