William F. Pentney

The Canadian Human Rights Commission sought an interlocutory injunction from the Federal Court to prevent the respondents from communicating telephonic hate messages pending a human rights tribunal decision.

The Federal Court granted the injunction, but the respondents subsequently set up a new phone line in the US and referred callers to it, leading to a contempt of court finding.

The Federal Court of Appeal set aside the injunction for lack of jurisdiction but upheld the contempt finding.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Federal Court does have jurisdiction to issue an injunction under s. 44 of the Federal Court Act, and affirmed the contempt finding because the respondents knowingly violated a valid court order.

The appellants, airline pilots forced to retire at age 60, filed complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission alleging age discrimination.

The Commission dismissed the complaints because the Canadian Human Rights Act provided an exception for mandatory retirement at the normal industry age.

The appellants sought judicial review, arguing the exception violated the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that neither the Commission nor a tribunal appointed by it has the jurisdiction to determine the constitutional validity of its enabling statute, as Parliament did not grant them the power to determine general questions of law.