David Yazbeck

The applicant sought judicial review of a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision regarding his complaints of age and disability discrimination in ten federal public service selection processes.

The Tribunal dismissed the complaints regarding the first nine processes but found disability discrimination in the tenth.

The Federal Court dismissed both applications for judicial review, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable in all respects, including its findings on prima facie discrimination and the duty to accommodate.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's decision to take no further action on her complaint regarding alleged disciplinary action by her former employer for assisting the Commission.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, holding that the applicant was not "directly affected" by the matter within the meaning of section 18.1(1) of the Federal Courts Act, as the disposition of the complaint did not affect her legal rights, impose obligations, or cause prejudicial effects, thereby depriving her of standing to seek judicial review.

The applicant, an RCMP officer on long-term sick leave, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB).

The HPARB had upheld a decision by the College of Physicians and Surgeons' Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee to take no further action on her complaint against an RCMP Occupational Health Services Officer.

The applicant alleged the physician arbitrarily changed her medical profile from employable with restrictions to unemployable without examining her.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the HPARB's conclusion that the physician performed a reasonable review of the medical information and exercised appropriate clinical judgment was reasonable.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by her local union, the national union, and various union officials on the basis of disability, sex, association, and marital status.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the allegations had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations based on disability, sex, and association, finding no evidence linking the alleged adverse treatment to those protected grounds.

The Tribunal also dismissed all allegations against the national union respondents, holding that the national union did not have a free-standing duty under the Human Rights Code to investigate allegations of discrimination by a separate legal entity (the local union).

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations of discrimination based on marital status against the local union respondents to proceed, finding they could not be dismissed at the summary hearing stage.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the remaining allegations under s. 45.1 or as an abuse of process.

The Supreme Court of Canada heard appeals regarding a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal finding of pay inequity between a largely female group of employees and a largely male comparator group.

The Federal Court of Appeal had previously overturned the Tribunal's finding.

In an oral judgment, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals on the merits, finding no reviewable error by the Tribunal, and dismissed the appeal regarding the reduction of damages, adopting the dissenting reasons of Evans J.A. from the court below.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that s. 10 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act applies only to civilian staff appointed and employed by the RCMP Commissioner.

It does not apply to civilian staff appointed or employed by a municipality under a police services agreement entered into by the Solicitor General pursuant to s. 20 of the Act.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees filed a pay equity complaint alleging that the employer discriminated against flight attendants, a predominantly female group, by paying them less than mechanics and pilots, who are predominantly male.

The employer argued that the groups belonged to different establishments because they were in separate bargaining units with different collective agreements.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the three groups belong to the same establishment because they are subject to a common personnel and wage policy, regardless of differences in their collective agreements.

The appeal was dismissed and the matter remitted to the Canadian Human Rights Commission to continue its investigation.

The former chauffeur to the Speaker of the House of Commons filed discrimination and harassment complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission after his position was declared surplus.

The Speaker and the House of Commons challenged the Commission's jurisdiction, claiming parliamentary privilege over the management of employees.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the appellants failed to establish a broad parliamentary privilege immunizing all employee relations from external review.

However, the Court ruled that the employee was required to pursue his complaints through the grievance procedure established under the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, which ousted the jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Commission for this dispute.

Following a successful appeal, the appellant was awarded costs in the Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal.

The court received written submissions on the quantum of costs.

The court fixed costs at $2,500 for the Divisional Court application, $1,500 for the motion for leave to appeal, and $12,500 for the appeal, plus disbursements and GST.

The employer and union agreed to reduce work hours for certain employees without loss of income, but the drafted collective agreement contained an error in the pay scales.

The employer corrected the error when calculating retroactive pay, prompting a union grievance.

The arbitrator rectified the collective agreement to reflect the true agreement, but the Divisional Court quashed the award, holding that arbitrators lack jurisdiction to apply rectification.

The Court of Appeal allowed the employer's appeal, holding that developments in labour law have expanded arbitrators' remedial powers, giving them exclusive jurisdiction to apply the law of the land, including the equitable remedy of rectification, despite a 'no alteration' clause in the agreement.

The appellants, foreign nationals living in Canada, challenged s. 16(4)(c) of the Public Service Employment Act, which gives preference to Canadian citizens in open competitions for federal public service employment.

They argued this preference violated their equality rights under s. 15(1) of the Charter.

A majority of the Supreme Court of Canada held that while the provision infringes s. 15(1) by discriminating on the analogous ground of citizenship, it is saved under s. 1 as a reasonable limit demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The Court found the objectives of enhancing the meaning of citizenship and encouraging naturalization to be pressing and substantial, and the preference to be rationally connected and minimally impairing.