Battlefords and District Co-operative Ltd. v. Gibbs and Human Rights Commission (Sask.), (1996) 203 N.R. 131 (SCC)

• Judge: Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 31, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1996), 203 N.R. 131 (SCC);1996 CanLII 187 (SCC);24 CCEL (2d) 167;[1996] ACS no 55;40 CCLI (2d) 1;140 DLR (4th) 1;203 NR 131;148 Sask R 1;[1996] SCJ No 55 (QL);[1997] 1 WWR 1;[1996] 3 SCR 566;27 CHRR 87;134 WAC 1

Battlefords & District Co-op v. Gibbs (1996), 203 N.R. 131 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Battlefords and District Co-operative Ltd. (appellant) v. Betty-Lu Clara Gibbs and The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (respondents) and The Council of Canadians with Disabilities, The Canadian Human Rights Commission, The Ontario Human Rights Commission and The Canadian Mental Health Association (interveners)

(24342)

Indexed As: Battlefords and District Co-operative Ltd. v. Gibbs and Human Rights Commission (Sask.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé,

Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin,

Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

October 31, 1996.

Summary:

An insurance policy which was offered as a benefit of employment provided that income replacement benefits for the mental­ly disabled would be terminated after two years, unless the person was institution­alized. There was no such restriction on the benefits available to the physically disabled. A mentally disabled employee complained that the employer discriminated against her in the terms and conditions of her employ­ment on the basis of disability, contrary to s. 16 of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code. A board of inquiry ruled in favour of the employee. The employer appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 107 Sask.R. 202, dismissed the appeal. The employer appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, Wakeling, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported at 120 Sask.R. 166; 68 W.A.C. 166, dismissed the appeal. The employer ap­pealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 904

Discrimination - Scope of basis for dis­crimination - An insurance policy which was offered as a benefit of employment provided that income replacement benefits for the mentally disabled would be ter­minated after two years, unless the person was institutionalized - There was no such restriction on the benefits available to the physically disabled - A mentally disabled employee complained that the employer discriminated against her on the basis of disability, contrary to s. 16 of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code - The employer argued that the mentally disabled employee should not be compared to those with physical disabilities in order to deter­mine whether there was discrimination, rather the proper approach was to compare the disabled to the non-disabled - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that in the circumstances it was appropriate to compare the benefits received by the men­tally disabled with those received by the physically disabled - See paragraphs 26 to 40.

Civil Rights - Topic 983

Discrimination - Employment - What constitutes discrimination - An insurance policy which was offered as a benefit of employment provided that income re­placement benefits for the mentally dis­abled would be terminated after two years, unless the person was institutionalized - There was no such restriction on the benefits available to the physically dis­abled - A mentally disabled employee complained that the employer discrimi­nated against her in the terms and con­ditions of her employment on the basis of disability, contrary to s. 16 of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the plan discriminated against the employee in violation of s. 16 - See para­graph 44.

Civil Rights - Topic 989

Discrimination - Employment - On basis of physical or mental handicap - [See Civil Rights - Topic 983 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 999.7

Discrimination - Employment - Sick leave benefits (incl. under insurance plan) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 983 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 999.7

Discrimination - Employment - Sick leave benefits (incl. under insurance plan) - An insurance policy which was offered as a benefit of employment provided that income replacement benefits for the men­tally disabled would be terminated after two years, unless the person was insti­tutionalized - There was no such restric­tion on the benefits available to the phy­sically disabled - A mentally disabled employee complained that the employer discriminated against her in the terms and conditions of her employment on the basis of disability, contrary to s. 16 of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code - The employer argued that there was no dis­crimination since the relevant term or condition of employment was an entitle­ment to insurance benefits under the poli­cy, which all employees received equally - The employer contended that when the contract was entered into, each insured employee enjoyed exactly the same pro­tection from the harm of disability - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the argument - See paragraphs 22 to 25.

Civil Rights - Topic 7003

Federal or provincial legislation - Inter­pretation of human rights legislation - The Supreme Court of Canada reiterated that human rights legislation was "fundamen­tal" or "quasi-constitutional" and as such should be interpreted in a broad and pur­posive manner - See paragraph 18.

Cases Noticed:

Brooks, Allen and Dixon et al. v. Canada Safeway Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1219; 94 N.R. 373; 58 Man.R.(2d) 161, appld. [para. 8].

Insurance Corp. of British Columbia v. Heerspink and Director, Human Rights Code, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 145; 43 N.R. 168, refd to. [para. 18].

Human Rights Commission (Ont.) and O'Malley v. Simpson Sears, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536; 64 N.R. 161; 12 O.A.C. 241; 23 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 9 C.C.E.L. 185; 17 Admin. L.R. 89; 86 C.L.L.C. 17,002, refd to. [para. 18].

Human Rights Commission (Ont.) and Bates v. Zurich Insurance Co., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 321; 138 N.R. 1; 55 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 18].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255; [1989] 2 W.W.R. 289; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 34 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 36 C.R.R. 193; 25 C.C.E.L. 255, refd to. [para. 20].

University of British Columbia v. Berg, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 353; 152 N.R. 99; 26 B.C.A.C. 241; 44 W.A.C. 241, consd. [para. 25].

Janzen and Govereau v. Pharos Restaurant and Grammas et al., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1252; 95 N.R. 81; 58 Man.R.(2d) 1, consd. [para. 27].

R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; 125 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 81; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 31].

Statutes Noticed:

Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, S.S. 1979, c. S-24.1, sect. 16(1) [para. 7].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, House of Commons, Sub-Com­mittee on Equality Rights, Equality for All: Report of the Parliamentary Com­mittee on Equality Rights (1985), p. 89 [para. 31].

Counsel:

Robert G. Richards and Robert W. Leurer, for the appellant;

Milton C. Woodard, for the respondents;

Carolyn McCool, for the intervener, the Council of Canadians with Disabilities;

William Pentney and Margaret-Rose Jamieson, for the intervener, the Cana­dian Human Rights Commission;

M. David Lepofsky and Anthony D. Griffin, for the intervener, the Ontario Human Rights Commission;

Janet L. Budgell and Jonathan P.A. Batty, for the intervener, the Canadian Mental Health Association.

Solicitors of Record:

MacPherson Leslie & Tyerman, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the appellant;

Milton C. Woodard, Saskatoon, Sas­katchewan, for the respondents;

The British Columbia Public Interest Ad­vocary Centre, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervener, the Council of Canadians with Disabilities;

William F. Pentney and Margaret-Rose Jamieson, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener, the Canadian Human Rights Commission;

The Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Ontario Human Rights Commission;

The Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Canadian Mental Health Association.

This appeal was heard on May 1, 1996, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the court was delivered in both official languages on October 31, 1996, and the following opinions were filed:

Sopinka, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 44;

McLachlin, J. - see paragraphs 45 to 54.