Peter A. Gall

The Court dismissed an appeal from Alberta human rights proceedings concerning termination under a safety policy requiring pre-incident disclosure of drug dependence or addiction issues.

A majority held the tribunal reasonably found the employee was terminated for breaching the policy rather than because of addiction, so prima facie discrimination was not established.

Concurring judges would have found prima facie discrimination but still upheld the outcome on accommodation to undue hardship.

The dissent would have allowed the appeal, finding both prima facie discrimination and inadequate accommodation.

In a criminal bribery prosecution, the appellant international financial organization challenged a third party production order and subpoenas issued in support of a Garofoli wiretap challenge.

The Court held that archival and personnel immunities under the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act applied to records and investigators of the organization’s integrity unit, and no waiver was established.

The Court further held that, in the Garofoli context, third party production requires a reasonable likelihood of probative value to the affiant-knowledge issues, not broad relevance to trial truth.

Because that threshold was not met, the production order was set aside.

The appellant challenged an appellate ruling that had quashed a labour board decision and remitted labour code complaints for reconsideration.

The Court held the board had considered the relevant statutory provisions and factual record, and its interpretation was reasonable and entitled to deference on judicial review.

It reaffirmed that administrative decision-makers need not expressly address every possible interpretive nuance raised by parties.

Viewed as a whole and in light of the record, the board's reasons met the reasonableness standard.

The appeal was allowed, the appellate judgment was set aside, and the trial-level judgment was restored with costs.