|
Our Mission
To provide Canadians with an improved quality of life
and an assurance of equal access to the opportunities
that exist in our society through the fair-minded and
equitable interpretation and enforcement of the Canadian
Human Rights Act and the Employment
Equity Act.
How was the Canadian Human Rights
Tribunal created?
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) was created
in 1977 by an Act of Parliament. The Canadian Human Rights
Act prohibits discrimination on a number of grounds
including race, religion and disability.
Before the CHRT began to receive funding directly from
Parliament it was funded through the Canadian Human Rights
Commission (CHRC). However, after 1988 the Tribunal began
to gradually work toward operating independently from the
CHRC. Parliament finally enshrined the Tribunal's independence
in law and the Canadian Human Rights Act was amended
to formalize the CHRT's independence. On June 28, 1998,
the CHRT officially became a separate agency.
What is the Canadian Human Rights
Tribunal?
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) is much
like a court. It was created by Parliament to inquire into
complaints of discrimination and to decide if what is alleged
to have occurred is a discriminatory practice under the
Canadian Human Rights Act. As an administrative tribunal,
the CHRT has more flexibility than regular courts. This
allows those who appear before it a chance to tell their
cases more fully without having to follow strict rules of
evidence. The Tribunal's main goal is to ensure that the
Canadian Human Rights Act is interpreted and applied
fairly and impartially at all hearings. The Tribunal is
not an advocate for human rights issues: That is the role
of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
What is the difference between
the Tribunal and the Commission?
For a better understanding of the different roles of the
Tribunal and the Commission within the federal human rights
process, it helps to look at our criminal justice system.
Similar to the police, the Commission receives and investigates
complaints. If it believes that further inquiry is warranted,
and a resolution between the parties cannot be reached,
it refers the case to the Tribunal for formal hearing. At
this stage, the Commission will take one of three positions:
1) It may act like a crown attorney and fully participate
at the hearing in the public interest by leading evidence
to prove a case of discrimination;
2) It may participate as above, but in a limited capacity
by addressing specific issues or legal questions, but will
not by present during the whole hearing; or
3) It may choose not to participate in the hearing process
at all.
In the last two scenarios, the complainant, through a lawyer
or on their own, will be required to lead the evidence necessary
to prove their case to the Tribunal. The Tribunal's role
in all situations is comparable to that of a judge, deciding
the case fairly and impartially by weighing all the evidence
introduced by all parties and deciding if discrimination
under the Act has occurred. If yes, the Tribunal will determine
an appropriate remedy.
|