William F. Pentney

The Canadian Human Rights Commission sought an interlocutory injunction from the Federal Court to prevent the respondents from communicating telephonic hate messages pending a human rights tribunal decision.

The Federal Court granted the injunction, but the respondents subsequently set up a new phone line in the US and referred callers to it, leading to a contempt of court finding.

The Federal Court of Appeal set aside the injunction for lack of jurisdiction but upheld the contempt finding.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Federal Court does have jurisdiction to issue an injunction under s. 44 of the Federal Court Act, and affirmed the contempt finding because the respondents knowingly violated a valid court order.

The appellants, airline pilots forced to retire at age 60, filed complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission alleging age discrimination.

The Commission dismissed the complaints because the Canadian Human Rights Act provided an exception for mandatory retirement at the normal industry age.

The appellants sought judicial review, arguing the exception violated the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that neither the Commission nor a tribunal appointed by it has the jurisdiction to determine the constitutional validity of its enabling statute, as Parliament did not grant them the power to determine general questions of law.

Appeal from a Federal Court of Appeal judgment setting aside a Human Rights Tribunal decision that had found discrimination in the denial of bereavement leave to a federal employee seeking leave to attend the funeral of his same-sex partner's father.

The Supreme Court majority held that the interpretation of 'family status' under the Canadian Human Rights Act was a question of law reviewable for correctness under s. 28 of the Federal Court Act.

On the merits, the majority concluded that, at the material time, 'family status' did not include same-sex relationships and that reading it otherwise would indirectly introduce protection for sexual orientation that Parliament had not then enacted.

The dissent would have deferred to the Tribunal's broad and purposive interpretation and would have reinstated the finding of discrimination.