Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review centered on whether the Canadian Human Rights Commission reasonably dismissed a complaint as untimely under section 41(1)(e) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

• Mr. Petruska argued the alleged discrimination was ongoing and that he had made earlier attempts to file a complaint.

• The Commission and Court found no credible evidence of timely filing or barriers beyond his control.

• The Court applied the Vavilov framework, assessing reasonableness for merits and correctness for procedural fairness.

• Procedural fairness claims failed due to lack of admissible evidence showing Commission error or misconduct.

• The Court ultimately ruled the Commission's decision to decline exercising discretion to extend the filing deadline was lawful and reasonable.

Facts and outcome of the case

Mr. Steven Petruska, a former Air Canada employee, filed a human rights complaint nearly two years after his employment was altered from terminated to "suspended pending discharge." His allegations included discrimination based on disability and family status, particularly around a denied COVID-related leave to care for his young daughter. He argued that his treatment, including locker clearance, loss of access to employment records, and financial blockages, amounted to ongoing discrimination and harassment.

Air Canada and the Canadian Human Rights Commission disagreed, asserting the last act of alleged discrimination occurred on October 21, 2021. As the complaint was officially filed on September 27, 2023—almost two years later—the Commission declined to hear the matter under section 41(1)(e) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which requires complaints to be filed within one year of the last discriminatory act unless exceptional circumstances justify an extension.

Mr. Petruska sought judicial review in the Federal Court, claiming the Commission’s decision was both unreasonable and procedurally unfair. He argued he had made efforts to file earlier, including an email in April 2022, and that the discrimination continued beyond the one-year period. However, he did not provide sufficient admissible evidence showing earlier filing attempts or explaining the delay.

The Court reviewed the Commission’s process and found its decision met the standard of reasonableness. The Commission considered the facts, engaged with Mr. Petruska’s arguments, and found no justification to extend the filing deadline. The Court also found no breach of procedural fairness. It concluded that Mr. Petruska was given an opportunity to respond, and his later submissions—containing key allegations—were never shared with the Commission during the decision-making process.

As a result, the application for judicial review was dismissed. Air Canada was successful, and no costs were awarded to either party.