Malcolm McKillop

The appellant challenged the constitutional validity of sections 32 and 34 of the Newfoundland Workers' Compensation Act, 1983, which replace a worker's right to sue in tort with a statutory right to compensation.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that this statutory bar does not constitute discrimination under section 15(1) of the Charter.

Applying the test from Andrews, the Court found that the situation of workers and dependents is not analogous to the enumerated grounds in section 15(1).

The appeal was dismissed.

The complainant, a robotics supervisor, left the plant during his shift because he believed the employer's plan to repair gates on robotic cells while production was running was unsafe and violated lockout procedures.

The employer subsequently refused to allow him to return to work, claiming he had quit.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the complainant did not quit and that the employer failed to discharge its burden under section 24(5) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act to prove that its refusal to continue his employment was not motivated, at least in part, by his efforts to enforce the Act.

The Board ordered the employer to compensate the complainant for his lost wages.