Of 19 appeals since 1996, the court has overturned the tribunal 11 times owing to errors of law. Both the Federal Court and the auditor general, moreover, have pointed to the interdependence between the commission and the tribunal as a potential problem. And within the CHRC, there is a multitude of potential conflicts of interest. Consider, for example, that commission staff can both mediate the rights disputes before it and assist a complainant to take his case before the courts. Indeed, the commission may solicit a complaint about discrimination, help draft the complaint, investigate it and then appear before the human rights tribunal to argue it.
Impartiality is largely a myth when one party serves as both prosecutor and patrolman.
In light of these problems, it is worth returning to first principles. The CHRC was set up in 1977 to offer an alternative to the lengthy and often costly process of adjudicating discrimination cases through the Federal Court system. Sad to say the commission has become another example of the administrative state whose agencies have been gradually replacing the law as a method of adjudicating disputes between citizens for most of this century. There should be a very strong reason of public interest to justify a state agency, backed by the taxpayer, intervening on one side in civil dispute. All too often there isn't.