GEORGE HUTCHESON Applicant v. CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, 2022 FC 143

Date: 20220204 Docket: 22-T-6 Citation: 2022 FC 143 Ottawa, Ontario, February 4, 2022 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr.

Justice Zinn BETWEEN:GEORGE HUTCHESONApplicantandCANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATIONRespondent ORDER AND REASONS [1] The Applicant moves for an Order pursuant to Rule 8(1) of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 extending the 30 day limit forfiling an application for judicial review of a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission [the Commission] concerning hiscomplaint about the Respondent [CBC]. [2] The relief sought is discretionary and the Court has long been guided by the criteria set out by the Federal Court of Appeal in Canada(Attorney General) v Hennelly, (1999) (FCA), 244 NR 399; (FCA) at paragraph 3: The proper test is whether the applicant has demonstrated: 1. a continuing intention to pursue his or her application; 2. that the application has some merit; 3. that no prejudice to the respondent arises from the delay; and 4. that a reasonable explanation for the delay exists. [3] The decision sought to be reviewed is from the Commission not to deal with the Applicant’s complaint pursuant to paragraph41(1)(

d) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, RSC 1985, c H-6, because the complaint is trivial. [4] The complaint filed by the Applicant is described in the decision of the Commission to be one "“alleging discrimination on the basisof colour”" because the CBC "“discriminates between racial groups by capitalizing the word ‘Black’ as a racial descriptor, while usinglowercase letters for other groups such as ‘white’.”" [5] The motion is opposed by the CBC that also sought to have an oral hearing of the motion.

Having read the material filed, I concludethat this matter can be dealt with pursuant to Rule 369, as a written motion. This is the usual course for matters such as this. [6] Even accepting a continuing intention to pursue the litigation, and assuming, without deciding, that there is no prejudice to the CBC,the Applicant has failed to meet the other aspects of the test.

I recognize that it has been held that the ultimate test is that justice be donebetween the parties (Alberta v Canada, 2018 FCA 83), but am satisfied that applying the four criteria above meets that objective in thiscase. [7] Having read the affidavit of the Applicant wherein he sets out the reasons the application for judicial review was not filed in a timelymanner, I conclude that he has failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, as described in this Court’s jurisprudence. [8] The reasons for his delay are described as (1) he received a second overlapping deadline in a separate matter before the Québec PressCouncil, (2) he had day-to-day work and family obligations that occupied a considerable part of his time, (3) he is not a lawyer and thusnot familiar with judicial review, although he did seek some limited assistance from a lawyer, and (4) he was required to undertakepersonal legal research. [9] As noted by the Respondent, this Court has not accepted explanations such as these to constitute a reasonable explanation for thedelay (see, among other decisions, Yee Tam v.

Canada (Transport), 2016 FC 105; Mutti v Canada (Minister of Citizenship andImmigration), 2006 FC 97; Thibodeau v Canada (Minister of Transport), 2002 FCT 386; Flores Cabrera v Canada (Canada (Minister ofCitizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1251). [10] Moreover, the Commission’s decision, if reviewed, would be reviewed on the standard of reasonableness (Canada (Minister ofCitizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65). There is nothing in the motion record suggesting what is unreasonable about theCommission’s decision.

Moreover, a read of the decision shows it to be thorough and attentive to the facts and law. There is nothingtherein that suggests that the proposed application for judicial review has merit. [11] For these reasons, this motion is dismissed. The Respondent did not seek costs and none will be ordered. ORDER IN 22-T-6

ORDER IN 22-T-6 THIS COURT ORDERS that the motion for an order extending the time for filing an application for judicial review is dismissed, without costs. "Russel W. Zinn" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: 22-t-6 STYLE OF CAUSE: GEORGE HUTCHESON v CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION motion dealt with in writing without appearance of the parties order AND reasons: zinn J. DATED: february 4, 2022 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY : George Hutcheson Applicant (ON HIS OWN BEHALF) Paula Pettit FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : - Nil - SELF-REPRESENTED Applicant Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Law Department, Labour & Employment Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT