View cases - Stewart McKelvey

79[385] However, by a decision rendered October 26, 2009, the Federal Court of Appeal has foundthat the CHRT cannot compensate victims of discrimination for legal costs under Section 53(2)(c) of the Act. [Canada (A.G.) v. Mowat 2009 FCA 309]. The Federal Court of Appeal foundthat Section 53 does not convey express statutory jurisdiction to award compensation under thisheading.[386] At paragraphs 101 and 102 of the decision, Justice Layden-Stevenson, with theconcurrence of Justices Letourneau and Sexton found as follows:a) “[101] These are issues that require the consideration of Parliament, for example,the desirability of empowering the Tribunal to award costs and, if desirable, themanner and the limits in which it should be accomplished. The role of Commissioncounsel may be a factor for contemplation as its role in the adjudicative processhas changed significantly over the years. For many years, Commission counselappeared at most Tribunal hearings, but that practice appears to have changed. Theformer procedure may have impacted Parliament’s decision regarding thepropriety of costs awards in human rights proceedings. Counsel advised that in2003 the Commission revisited its interpretation of its role under section 51 of theAct. Finally, if authority to award costs is to be granted to the Tribunal, the natureof the costs regime must be determined. There are a number of potentialpermutations.2010 CHRT 20 (CanLII)b) [102] The ultimate decision and the policy choices inherent in making it are forParliament, not the Tribunal or the court.”[387] Accordingly, there is no award to the Complainant under this heading.