Alberta Human Rights Commission v. Alberta Blue Cross Plan

• Jurisdiction: Alberta
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Judge: McGillivray, C.J.A., Haddad, Kerans, Lieberman and Moir, JJ.A.
• Citation: (1983), 48 A.R. 192 (CA),1983 ABCA 207,1 DLR (4th) 301,[1983] 6 WWR 758,28 Alta LR (2d) 1,48 AR 192,4 Admin LR 135
• Date: 08 September 1983

AHRC v. Alta. Blue Cross Plan (1983), 48 A.R. 192 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Alberta Human Rights Commission v. Alberta Blue Cross Plan

(No. 14904)

Indexed As: Alberta Human Rights Commission v. Alberta Blue Cross Plan

Alberta Court of Appeal

McGillivray, C.J.A., Haddad, Kerans, Lieberman and Moir, JJ.A.

September 8, 1983.

Summary:

The Alberta Human Rights Commission applied under the Individual's Rights Protection Act for the production of documents in the investigation of a woman's complaint of dismissal from employment due to pregnancy. The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a judgment reported at 34 A.R. 1, dismissed the application. The Commission appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, ordering the production of documents determined not to be confidential.

Civil Rights - Topic 987

Discrimination - Employment - On basis of sex - The Alberta Court of Appeal generally discussed whether discrimination on the basis of pregnancy constituted discrimination on the basis of sex - See paragraphs 12 to 19.

Civil Rights - Topic 1217

Security of the person - Lawful or reasonable search - What constitutes unreasonable search and seizure - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the forced production of documents by court order in a civil proceeding did not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure under s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - See paragraphs 20 to 28.

Evidence - Topic 4165

Witnesses - Privilege - Communications - Privileged communications - Procedure - A woman complained to the Human Rights Commission that she was dismissed from her employment because she was pregnant - The Commission applied for an order requiring the employer to produce personnel files for all pregnant women in the preceding three years - The trial judge held that the files were confidential - The Commission appealed - The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that the trial judge erred in determining that all the files were confidential - The court held that confidentiality should have been determined with respect to each individual file - See paragraphs 29 to 34.

Cases Noticed:

Bliss v. Attorney General of Canada, (1978), 23 N.R. 527; 92 D.L.R.(3d) 317 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

Wong v. Hughes Petroleum Ltd. (1983), 46 A.R. 276, refd to. [para. 16].

C.I.P. Paper Products Ltd. and Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (1978), 87 D.L.R.(3d) 609, refd to. [para. 17].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter et al. (1983), 42 A.R. 93 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Re Direction of Investigation and Research and Canada Safeway (1972), 26 D.L.R.(3d) 745, refd to. [para. 23].

Czuy et al. v. Mitchell et al. (1977), 1 A.R. 434; 1 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Slavutych v. Baker et al., [1975] 4 W.W.R. 620; 3 N.R. 587 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 29, 31].

Pavey v. Calgary Police Commission (1980), 22 A.R. 615, refd to. [para. 33].

Counsel:

James Scott, for the appellant;

Brian Sussman, for the respondent;

Julius Isaac, Q.C., for the intervenant, Attorney General of Canada;

Wm. Henkel, Q.C., for the intervenant, Attorney General of Alberta.

This appeal was heard before McGillivray, C.J.A., Haddad, Kerans, Lieberman and Moir, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On September 8, 1983, the following judgment was delivered by the Court of Appeal: