I. Overview

[1] This is a motion relating to an application for judicial review brought by the Applicant, Arif Hussain, in respect of a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission [CHRC] made pursuant to subsections 41(1)(d) and (e) of the Canadian Human Rights Act [Act]. In the decision, the CHRC refused to deal with the Applicant’s human rights complaint on the basis that it had, inter alia, already been dealt with by the Civil Review and Complaint Commission [CRCC].

[2] Prior to the CHRC decision, the Applicant launched a complaint with the CRCC relating to an investigation conducted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police [RCMP] into its handling of criminal allegations made by the Applicant against two individuals. The final report with recommendations issued by the CRCC was not judicially reviewed. Instead, the Applicant revived a concurrent complaint to the CHRC and initiated the underlying judicial review of the CHRC’s decision.

[3] By this motion, the Applicant seeks to add the RCMP and CRCC as respondents to the application, and also requests declaratory and other relief against the RCMP and CRCC, including: an order requiring the RCMP and CRCC to defend their respective reports; a declaration that the CRCC fabricated material facts in its report; a declaration that the RCMP initial investigation and re-investigation into the alleged criminal complaints failed to meet the standards of the rule of law and legislative intent; a declaration that the CRCC’s final report is invalid and should be quashed; an order directing the RCMP to re-open the Applicant’s original 2014 criminal complaint; and a declaration that the RCMP’s creation of a new file in 2016, instead of re‑opening the Applicant’s 2014 criminal complaint, resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

[4] For the reasons below, the motion is dismissed as I am of the view that judicial review of the CHRC’s decision will not directly affect the RCMP or CRCC, that their participation as respondents is not necessary to ensure that the matters in dispute will be effectually and completely determined, and that the other relief sought on the motion is likewise improper or otherwise impermissible.

II. Background

[5] In 2016, the Applicant was involved in commercial dealings that went awry relating to an alleged sale and transfer of a service contract for a truck. He requested an investigation by the RCMP, asserting criminal acts, including fraud, extortion, and perjury by two individuals.

[6] The Applicant was dissatisfied with the RCMP’s handling of his allegations and, in May 2017, filed a complaint with the CRCC, leading to an RCMP investigation. Shortly thereafter, in October 2017, the Applicant also filed a complaint with the CHRC asserting that the RCMP had discriminated against him on the basis of race.

[7] In June 2018, the Applicant requested that the CRCC review the RCMP’s initial report from its investigation.

[8] In February 2019, the CHRC decided it could not deal with the Applicant’s complaint because the Applicant was engaged in the ongoing CRCC process. It advised the Applicant that he could return to the CHRC within thirty days of the completion of the process if he believed his human rights issues were not adequately addressed by the CRCC.

[9] In August 2021, the RCMP provided its response to an interim report issued by the CRCC in May 2019 with findings and recommendations. A Final Report was issued by the CRCC in September 2021.

[10] In August 2022, the Applicant reactivated his complaint with the CHRC.

[11] On April 13, 2023, pursuant to subsections 41(1)(d) and (e) of the Act (set out below), the CHRC decided not to deal with the Applicant’s complaint as, in its view, it was both too late and the human rights issues raised in the complaint had already been dealt with by the CRCC process.

Commission to deal with complaint

Irrecevabilité

41 (1) Subject to section 40, the Commission shall deal with any complaint filed with it unless in respect of that complaint it appears to the Commission that

41 (1) Sous réserve de l’article 40, la Commission statue sur toute plainte dont elle est saisie à moins qu’elle estime celle-ci irrecevable pour un des motifs suivants :

(d) the complaint is trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith; or

d) la plainte est frivole, vexatoire ou entachée de mauvaise foi;

(e) the complaint is based on acts or omissions the last of which occurred more than one year, or such longer period of time as the Commission considers appropriate in the circumstances, before receipt of the complaint.

e) la plainte a été déposée après l’expiration d’un délai d’un an après le dernier des faits sur lesquels elle est fondée, ou de tout délai supérieur que la Commission estime indiqué dans les circonstances.

[12] The underlying judicial review of the CHRC decision was scheduled to be heard on October 30, 2024, but was adjourned sine die in order to address the Applicant’s present motion and to allow the Applicant’s motion materials to be served on the CRCC. The CRCC was subsequently served with the Applicant’s motion, but did not file a separate response. Instead, it relies on the responding materials submitted on behalf of the Respondent and RCMP, which have been considered, along with the Applicant’s record.

III. Issue

[13] The determinative issue on this motion is whether the RCMP and CRCC should be added as party respondents.

IV. Analysis

[14] Rule 303 of the Federal Courts Rules SOR/98-106 [Federal Courts Rules] outlines who should be named as a party respondent to an application:

Respondents

Défendeurs

303 (1) Subject to subsection (2), an applicant shall name as a respondent every person

303 (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), le demandeur désigne à titre de défendeur :

(a) directly affected by the order sought in the application, other than a tribunal in respect of which the application is brought; or

a) toute personne directement touchée par l’ordonnance recherchée, autre que l’office fédéral visé par la demande;

(b) required to be named as a party under an Act of Parliament pursuant to which the application is brought.

b) toute autre personne qui doit être désignée à titre de partie aux termes de la loi fédérale ou de ses textes d’application qui prévoient ou autorisent la présentation de la demande.

Application for judicial review

Défendeurs — demande de contrôle judiciaire

(2) Where in an application for judicial review there are no persons that can be named under subsection (1), the applicant shall name the Attorney General of Canada as a respondent.

(2) Dans une demande de contrôle judiciaire, si aucun défendeur n’est désigné en application du paragraphe (1), le demandeur désigne le procureur général du Canada à ce titre.

[15] Rule 104 of the Federal Courts Rules provides for the joinder of a person as a party to a proceeding who ought to have been added as a party, or whose presence before the Court is necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute are effectually and completely determined.

[16] Thus, pursuant to rules 104 and 303(1)(a), the RCMP and CRCC can only be added as party respondents to this application for judicial review if they are directly affected by the order sought in the application or if their presence is necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute are effectually and completely determined by the Court.

[17] In this case, it is my view that neither condition is satisfied.

[18] As set out in Forest Ethics Advocacy Association v Canada (National Energy Board), 2013 FCA 236, rule 303(1)(a) restricts the category of parties who must be added as respondent to those who, if the tribunal’s decision were different, could have brought an application for judicial review themselves (at para 18). The question is whether “the relief sought in the application for judicial review will affect a party’s legal rights, impose legal obligations upon it, or prejudicially affect it in some way” (para 21).

[19] Here, neither the RCMP nor the CRCC will be impacted by the order that can be made in this application for judicial review as it is only the CHRC decision that is under review.

[20] As highlighted in the responding materials, subsection 41(1) of the Act is a complaint screening provision that provides the CHRC with the discretion to refuse to deal with a complaint before assessing its merits.

[21] In a judicial review of a CHRC screening decision, the Court can only evaluate the reasonableness of the decision to refuse to deal with the complaint, and whether the CHRC acted in a procedurally fair manner in arriving at its decision. Similarly, it is only the record that was before the CHRC that may be considered. It is not the role of the Court to engage with the merits of the complaint that was not addressed by the CHRC: see by analogy O’Grady v Bell Canada, 2012 FC 1448 at paras 5-6.

[22] Further, the relief that can be granted on judicial review will relate only to the CHRC decision and whether it should be re-determined. The relief cannot impact a decision that is not under review, including the investigations made by the RCMP and the reports made by the CRCC.

[23] As noted by Justice Walker (then of this Court) in Dixon v TD Bank Group, 2022 FC 331 [Dixon] at paragraphs 22-24, a remedy that extends beyond the jurisdiction of the Court cannot serve as the foundation for rule 303(1) party status:

[22] Rule 303(1) of the Federal Courts Rules, requires an applicant to name as a respondent every person directly affected by the order sought in the application. In his Notice of Application, one of the remedies sought by Mr. Dixon is a quantified personal apology from Ms. Rover in the amount of $1,000.00.

[23] As stated above, Mr. Dixon has requested that the Court order a remedy that would, if granted, directly affect Ms. Rover. However, the Court’s role in this application is to review the Decision, the law and the parties’ submissions, and determine whether the Decision should be set aside and the Complaint returned to the Commission for reconsideration. Even were Mr. Dixon to be successful, the Court does not have the authority to require Ms. Rover to make a payment to him in the guise of a quantified apology.

[24] Judicial review is a confusing concept for many people and self-represented litigants sometimes seek recourse from the Court that is beyond the purview of an application for judicial review. The fact that Mr. Dixon has requested a remedy directly against Ms. Rover does not mean that she is or could be “directly affected by the order” he seeks.

[24] The same reasoning stated in Dixon applies here. Even though the Applicant now requests declaratory relief as against the RCMP and CRCC, this relief cannot be granted in a judicial review of a CHRC screening decision, or by way of motion. The remedies sought by the Applicant against the RCMP and CRCC are outside the jurisdiction of the Court.

[25] Similarly, while the Applicant asserts that the RCMP and the CRCC were involved in the alleged procedural failures that formed the basis for the CHRC’s decision, the procedures associated with the CHRC’s decision under paragraphs 41(1)(d) and (e) of the Act are limited to those relating to the decision itself and do not extend to the steps involved in the investigations before the RCMP and the CRCC process.

[26] The RCMP and CRCC are simply not entities that are directly affected by relief that can be properly sought in the application.

[27] Likewise, the participation of the RCMP and CRCC as party respondents is not necessary for effectually determining the issues on the judicial review. Even in an action where an entity may have evidence relevant to some aspect of the proceeding, the entity is only a necessary party if they should be bound by the result of the proceeding: Canada (Fisheries and Oceans) v Shubenacadie Indian Band, 2002 FCA 509 at para 8. The remedies available to the Applicant on this judicial review (i.e., redetermination of the CHRC complaint by the CHRC) are unrelated and cannot extend to the RCMP and the CRCC.

[28] As it is my view that neither the RCMP nor the CRCC are directly affected by the application, and that their participation is not necessary for the Court’s effectual and complete determination of the issues, it is my view that they should not be added as party respondents.

[29] The remainder of the relief requested on this motion is directly impacted by this finding and, as noted earlier, extends beyond relief that can be granted. As such, the motion is dismissed in its entirety.

V. Costs

[30] As the Respondent is the successful party on this motion, they shall be entitled to some costs. However, as the Applicant is a self-represented litigant, the costs awarded shall be limited to $500.

ORDER IN T-1211-23

THIS COURT ORDERS that:

The motion is dismissed.
The Respondent is awarded costs in the amount of $500.

"Angela Furlanetto"

Judge

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:

T-1211-23

STYLE OF CAUSE:

ARIF HUSSAIN v THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

MOTION IN WRITING CONSIDERED AT TORONTO, ONTARIO PURSUANT TO RULE 369 OF THE FEDERAL COURTS RULES

ORDER AND REASONS:

FURLANETTO J.

DATED:

January 10, 2025

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:

Arif Hussain

For The Applicant

(ON HIS OWN BEHALF)

Evan Morrow

For The Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Attorney General of Canada

Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

For The Respondent

Hussain v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 58

Case Summary

I. Overview

II. Background

III. Issue

IV. Analysis

V. Costs

Hussain v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 58

Case Summary

I. Overview

II. Background

III. Issue

IV. Analysis

V. Costs