View cases - Stewart McKelvey

71speaking to the Complainant, what was better for her and what she needed. This course of actionwas, in my view, reckless.[256] In the circumstances, I order CN to pay to the Complainant the sum of $20,000, inadditional compensation under section 53(3) of the Act.(vi) Costs and Interest.[257] In her closing arguments, counsel for the Complainant sought an award for legal cost.The question whether the Tribunal has the authority to award costs and whether that authoritycould be found in paragraph 53(2)(c) of the Act, which authorizes the Tribunal to compensate acomplainant for any expenses incurred as a result of the discriminatory practice, was dealt with bythe Federal Court of Appeal in Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat, 2009 FCA 309.2010 CHRT 22 (CanLII)[258] After an analysis of Human Rights Code in various provinces that allowed an award forcost and after analysing the purported intent of Parliament, the Federal Court of Appeal concludedat paragraph 95:The quest is to determine whether Parliament intended to endow the Tribunal withthe authority to award costs to a successful complainant. For the reasons given, Iconclude that Parliament did not intend to grant, and did not grant, to the Tribunalthe power to award costs. To conclude that the Tribunal may award legal costsunder the guise of “expenses incurred by the victim as a result of thediscriminatory practice” would be to introduce indirectly into the Act a powerwhich Parliament did not intend it to have.[259] Taking into consideration the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, the Tribunal cannotaccede to the Complainant’s request that CN be ordered to pay her legal cost.[260] The Complainant and Cindy Richards have submitted at the hearing out of pocketexpenses which amount to $336.68, each being accountable for half this amount. This amountwas not challenged by CN. Under the provision of paragraph 53(2)(c) of the Act, CN is ordered toreimburse half this amount to the Complainant.