The Attorney General of Canada successfully appealed a judgment from the Federal Court of Appeal. The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal from the decision affirming a tribunal’s decision that Service Canada had not abused its authority when it advertised to fill a position that respondent claimed was not a new position and ought not to have been advertised.

27. December 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Public Service Staffing Tribunal – Employee classification – Abuse of public authority – Labour law – Government – Employees – Employment law – Appointment – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Canada v. Kane, [2012] S.C.J. No. 64, 2012 SCC ...

A partner in a limited liability partnership is not an employee of the partnership for the purpose of claiming protection of human rights legislation from age discrimination. The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and the Supreme Court, on judicial review, decided that for the purposes of human rights legislation, a partnership may be treated as a separate legal entity from its partners and as the employer of the partner, resulting the Tribunal having jurisdiction to hear a complaint by a partner of discrimination in his employment. On appeal by the partnership, the Court of Appeal found that the principles of interpretation of the Human Rights Code, RSBC 1996, c.210, which mandated a broad, liberal approach consistent with its remedial purposes, do not extend to overriding the fundamental and well-established principle of law that a partnership, is not, in law, a separate entity but a collective of its partners. As such, it cannot in law be an employer of a partner. The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint and the appeal was allowed.

25. September 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Age – Statutory interpretation – Employment law – Employee – definition – Partnerships – Mandatory retirement – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Compliance with legislation Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP v. British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal), [2012] B.C.J. ...

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.

26. July 2005 0
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 ...

Manitoba was unsuccessful in its appeal of a decision allowing a Statement of Claim filed by one of its employees (“Desrivieres”) to stand. The action commenced by Desrivieres sought entitlement to disability benefits under the government employee plan. The court held that the dispute resolution mechanism in this Plan did not oust the jurisdiction of the court.

28. January 2003 0
Administrative law – Government – Employees – Benefit plans – Dispute resolution schemes – Jurisdiction – Final and binding – Definition – Adjudication – Jurisdiction of court – Labour law – Collective agreements Desrivieres v. Manitoba, [2002] M.J. No. 449, Manitoba Court of Appeal, November 15, 2002, Scott C.J.M., Monnin and Hamilton JJ.A. This case involved the issue of whether ...