Milton C. Woodard

The appellant employer provided an income replacement insurance policy that terminated benefits for mentally disabled employees after two years unless they were institutionalized, while physically disabled employees received benefits until age 65 regardless of institutionalization.

The respondent, who became mentally disabled, filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the insurance plan discriminated on the basis of mental disability contrary to s. 16(1) of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, as the true purpose of the plan was to insure against the income-related consequences of disability generally, making the distinction between mental and physical disabilities discriminatory.

The respondent, a Chief Fire Prevention Officer, was mandatorily retired at age 60 pursuant to a collective agreement.

He filed a human rights complaint alleging age discrimination.

The Board of Inquiry found the mandatory retirement was a reasonable occupational qualification under the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, applying the Etobicoke test.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that individualized testing should have been considered and that the union violated the Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, restoring the Board's decision that the mandatory retirement policy was justified and that the union did not discriminate.

The respondent, a fire fighter, was subjected to mandatory retirement at age 62 pursuant to a collective agreement.

He filed a complaint alleging age discrimination under the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code.

The Board of Inquiry found discrimination, but the Court of Queen's Bench reversed this decision.

The Court of Appeal restored the Board's decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the mandatory retirement policy was a reasonable occupational requirement, applying the principles established in a companion case.

The appellants, RCMP officers, were the subject of a complaint to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission alleging arbitrary arrest and detention contrary to section 7 of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code.

A Board of Inquiry was established to investigate.

The appellants sought an order of prohibition, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that section 7 of the Code is inoperative in relation to arrest or detention under the criminal law, as it encroaches on the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over criminal law and procedure.

The appeal was allowed.