The language used by Parliament in the Canadian Human Rights Act is wide enough to cover its own employees; therefore, the former Speaker of the House of Commons could not evoke the principles of parliamentary privilege in order to prevent the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal from investigating the Respondent’s complaint. However, the Respondent’s complaints could have been adjudicated under the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act which was intended to be the exclusive method of dispute resolution for such employees. As such, the appeal was allowed.
Administrative law – Government – Employees – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Employment law – Parliamentary employment – Constitutional law – Parliamentary privilege – Application of human rights legislation Canada (House of Commons) v. Vaid, [2005] S.C.J. No. 28, Supreme Court of Canada, May 20, 2005, McLachlin C.J. and Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella ...