In an investigation under s. 7 of the CHRA, is there sufficient evidence to establish that there is discriminatory bias?

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. Paul, supra at D389: It is important to note that this is an investigation under s. 7 and not s. 10 of the CHRA. In my view, in order to provide the sufficient grounds necessary to appoint a tribunal, specific material facts must be found, which link a possible discriminatory practice to the case under investigation. This is not a s.10 inquiry where the discriminatory policy or practice of an organization is under scrutiny. Indications that a problem may exist in a particular industry, at best, only provide corroborating evidence. In my view, this approach acts as a double-edged sword. The investigator may develop a predetermined view of the complaint, based on this general knowledge. Then, in order to help the alleged victim, the investigator may tend to filter the information, whether consciously or unconsciously, to “fit” the pattern. The result will undoubtedly be a distorted version of the events. Facts are facts. There must be some evidence, which relates the “general tendency” to the specific complaint. I do not find sufficient links in the present case.