Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 689
Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada Appellant
v.
Canadian Human Rights Commission Respondent
and
The Attorney General of Canada,
the Attorney General for Ontario
and the Attorney General of Quebec Interveners
Indexed as: Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada
File No.: 21921.
1991: December 9.
Present: La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.
on appeal from the federal court of appeal
Constitutional law ‑‑ Division of powers ‑‑ Banks and banking operations ‑‑ Human rights ‑‑ Discrimination ‑‑ Search warrant issued by Canadian Human Rights Commission against provincially regulated insurance company (Sun Life) ‑‑ Complaint made solely against federally regulated company (Bank of Montreal) and not directed at Sun Life ‑‑ Whether or not Canadian Human Rights Commission had jurisdiction to issue search warrant against provincially regulated company.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, 1990 CanLII 13077 (FCA), [1990] 2 F.C. 609, 109 N.R. 316, 14 C.H.R.R. D/17, 42 C.C.L.I. 1, 90 C.L.L.C. {PP} 17,015, allowing an appeal from a judgment of McNair J. granting certiorari and quashing a search warrant issued by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Appeal dismissed.
Mary Eberts and Wendy M. Matheson, for the appellant.
René Duval, for the respondent.
Brian Evernden, for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada.
M. David Lepofsky and John Terry, for the intervener the Attorney General for Ontario.
Monique Rousseau, for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec.
//La Forest J.//
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
La Forest J. ‑‑ It will not be necessary to hear from you Mr. Duval. The Court is ready to hand down judgment. The judgment will be pronounced by Justice McLachlin.
//McLachlin J.//
McLachlin J. ‑‑ This case concerns the validity of a search warrant issued by the Canadian Human Rights Commission against the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada in respect of a complaint against the Bank of Montreal. We are all of the view that the warrant was properly issued given that the complaint is made solely against the Bank of Montreal. At this stage, the matter is investigatory and it is not directed at the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant: Tory Tory DesLauriers & Binnington, Toronto.
Solicitor for the respondent: Canadian Human Rights Commission, Ottawa.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada: John C. Tait, Ottawa.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General for Ontario: The Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec: Monique Rousseau, Ste‑Foy.