Maria Morellato

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and held that section 13(1)(b) of British Columbia’s Human Rights Code can apply to discriminatory conduct by a co-worker who is not the complainant’s employer or superior, if the conduct has a sufficient nexus to the employment context.

The majority adopted a contextual test focused on workplace integration, location of conduct, and workplace impact, and restored the tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

Concurring reasons emphasized established human rights principles and workplace impact, while the dissent would have limited section 13(1)(b) to employer-employee or analogous relationships.

On a statutory interpretation appeal concerning reserve land taxation, the appellant argued that a bylaw clause permitting consideration of restrictions placed on land use “by the band” excluded a lease restriction created in a Crown lease.

The Court held that the assessor could consider the golf-club use restriction when valuing the leased reserve lands for assessment purposes.

Reading the bylaw text, purpose, and legislative context together, the Court found the 1996 amendment narrowed qualifying restrictions but did not bar this restriction.

The Court also held the Crown’s historical statutory role in reserve leasing did not negate that the restriction was placed by the band in context.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Two Indian bands appealed dismissal of claims alleging that the Crown, as fiduciary, was obliged to invest oil and gas royalties held in the Consolidated Revenue Fund and had breached its obligations by paying interest under a long-term government bond formula.

The Court held that while the Crown owed fiduciary duties arising from the surrenders and trust-like relationship, the Indian Act, Financial Administration Act, and Indian Oil and Gas Act did not authorize the Crown to invest the royalties and instead required the funds to remain in the CRF subject to statutory payment mechanisms.

The Court further held that the chosen interest methodology was not imprudent, that the Crown was neither unjustly enriched nor unlawfully conflicted by the statutory arrangement, and that the money management provisions of the Indian Act did not violate s. 15(1) of the Charter.

The appeals were dismissed with costs.

The appellants were convicted of attempting to sell herring spawn on kelp without the required licence and argued that the prohibition infringed an aboriginal right protected by s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The majority held that the conduct amounted to an attempt to sell and that the Heiltsuk had established an aboriginal right to trade herring spawn on kelp on a commercial basis, grounded in pre-contact practices integral to their distinctive culture.

The majority further held that the right had not been extinguished and that the regulatory scheme prima facie infringed it.

However, the evidentiary record was insufficient to determine whether the infringement was justified, so a new trial was ordered on guilt or innocence and on justification.

A dissent would have found either no applicable aboriginal right in the circumstances or that any such right had been extinguished.