Boulter et al. v. Nova Scotia Power Inc. et al., (2009) 275 N.S.R.(2d) 214 (CA)

• Judge: Saunders, Hamilton and Fichaud, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: December 01, 2008
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (2009), 275 N.S.R.(2d) 214 (CA);2009 NSCA 17

Boulter v. N.S. Power (2009), 275 N.S.R.(2d) 214 (CA);

    877 A.P.R. 214

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. FE.032

Denise Boulter, Yvonne Carvery, Laura Lannon, Wayne MacNaughton, Karan Whitman (appellants) and Affordable Energy Coalition (appellant) and Nova Scotia General Government and Employees Union (appellant) v. Nova Scotia Power Incorporated and Attorney General of Nova Scotia (respondents)

(CA 292954; 2009 NSCA 17)

Indexed As: Boulter et al. v. Nova Scotia Power Inc. et al.

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Saunders, Hamilton and Fichaud, JJ.A.

February 13, 2009.

Summary:

Five low income customers of Nova Scotia Power Inc. claimed that s. 67(1) of the Public Utilities Act, which prohibited the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board from setting a differential rate for low income customers for electrical service, discriminated against them on the ground of poverty contrary to s. 15(1) of the Charter. The Board ruled that there was no violation of s. 15(1). The customers appealed.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The court held that poverty was not an analogous ground of discrimination. Further, there was no direct or adverse effect discrimination on enumerated grounds.

Civil Rights - Topic 908

Discrimination - General principles - Nondiscriminatory laws - Five low income customers of Nova Scotia Power Inc. claimed that s. 67(1) of the Public Utilities Act, which prohibited the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board from setting a differential rate for low income customers for electrical service, discriminated against them on the ground of poverty contrary to s. 15(1) of the Charter - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, held that poverty was not an analogous ground - Further, s. 67(1) did not discriminate against the customers on enumerated grounds (i.e., sex, race, ethnic or national origin, age, disability or marital status) either directly or by adverse effect discrimination, because the customers were not treated any differently than their respective comparator groups - Therefore, the court rejected the s. 15(1) claim - See paragraphs 31 to 84.

Civil Rights - Topic 910

Discrimination - General principles - Adverse effect, indirect or constructive discrimination - [See Civil Rights - Topic 908 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8581.2

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Judicial review - (incl. standard of review) - Five low income customers of Nova Scotia Power Inc. claimed that s. 67(1) of the Public Utilities Act, which prohibited the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board from setting a differential rate for low income customers for electrical service, discriminated against them on the ground of poverty contrary to s. 15(1) of the Charter - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, relying on Dunsmuir v. N.B. (SCC 2008), held that because of the s. 96 court's role to interpret the Constitution, the Board's decision on a constitutional challenge to the validity of legislation was to be reviewed for correctness - See paragraph 27.

Civil Rights - Topic 8668

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Equality rights (s. 15) - What constitutes a breach of s. 15 - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal noted that in R. v. Kapp (SCC 2008), the court restated the three part test for what constituted discrimination set out in Law v. Canada (SCC 1999) - The court quoting Kapp, stated that "'The template in Andrews, as further developed in a series of cases culminating in Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497, established in essence a two-part test for showing discrimination under s. 15(1): (1) Does the law create a distinction based on an enumerated or analogous ground? (2) Does the distinction create a disadvantage by perpetuating prejudice or stereotyping? These were divided, in Law, into three steps, but in our view the test is, in substance, the same'" - See paragraph 30.

Civil Rights - Topic 8668

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Equality rights (s. 15) - What constitutes a breach of s. 15 - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal noted that according to R. v. Kapp (SCC 2008), the first part of the test for what constituted discrimination was whether the law created a distinction based on an enumerated or analogous ground - The court stated that the requirement of a "distinction" called for a comparator analysis (a comparison of the person seeking equal treatment with the other people with whom he or she could legitimately invite comparison) - The court discussed the steps in a comparator analysis - The court stated that the comparator analysis applied generally to s. 15(1) claims for either direct or adverse effect discrimination - See paragraphs 45 to 84.

Civil Rights - Topic 8668

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Equality rights (s. 15) - What constitutes a breach of s. 15 - [See Civil Rights - Topic 908 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8671

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Equality rights (s. 15) - Enumerated categories - [See Civil Rights - Topic 908 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8672

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Equality rights (s. 15) - Analogous categories - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal discussed what constituted an analogous ground for purposes of s. 15 of the Charter, and in particular whether poverty was an analogous ground - The court held that pursuant to Corbiere v. Canada (1999 SCC), the test was "... whether poverty is a personal characteristic that either (1) is actually immutable or (2) is constructively immutable because it is changeable only at unacceptable cost to personal identity or, put differently, the government has no legitimate interest in expecting the individual to change" - See paragraph 35.

Civil Rights - Topic 8672

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Equality rights (s. 15) - Analogous categories - Five customers of Nova Scotia Power Inc. claimed that s. 67(1) of the Public Utilities Act, which prohibited the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board from setting a differential rate for low income customers for electrical service, discriminated against them on the ground of poverty contrary to s. 15(1) of the Charter - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, rejected the s. 15(1) claim, holding that poverty was not an analogous ground - See paragraphs 31 to 44.

Public Utilities - Topic 4663.2

Public utility commissions or corporations (incl. private providers) - Regulation - Rates - Differential rates for low income customers - [See Civil Rights - Topic 908 ].

Public Utilities - Topic 4741

Public utility commissions or corporations (incl. private providers) - Judicial review - General (incl. standard of review) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8581.2 ].

Cases Noticed:

Dalhousie Legal Aid Service v. Nova Scotia Power Inc. (2006), 245 N.S.R.(2d) 206; 777 A.P.R. 206; 2006 NSCA 74, leave to appeal denied (2007), 364 N.R. 391; 258 N.S.R.(2d) 400; 824 A.P.R. 400 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 8].

Law v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497; 236 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 25].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Kapp (J.M.) et al. (2008), 376 N.R. 1; 256 B.C.A.C. 75; 431 W.A.C. 75; 2008 SCC 41, refd to. [para. 30].

Corbière et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs) et al., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 203; 239 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 34].

Delisle v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 989; 244 N.R. 33, refd to. [para. 34].

Baier et al. v. Alberta, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 673; 365 N.R. 1; 412 A.R. 300; 404 W.A.C. 300, refd to. [para. 34].

Clyke v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Community Services) (2005), 229 N.S.R.(2d) 209; 725 A.P.R. 209; 2005 NSCA 3, refd to. [para. 34].

Brebric v. Niksic (2002), 163 O.A.C. 92 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Banks (D.) et al. (2007), 220 O.A.C. 211; 2007 ONCA 19, leave to appeal denied (2007), 376 N.R. 394; 245 O.A.C. 400 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 34].

Forrest v. Canada (Attorney General) (2006), 357 N.R. 168 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255, refd to. [para. 36].

Lavoie et al. v. Canada et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 769; 284 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 36].

Miron and Valliere v. Trudel et al., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 418; 181 N.R. 253; 81 O.A.C. 253, refd to. [para. 36].

Walsh v. Bona, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 325; 297 N.R. 203; 210 N.S.R.(2d) 273; 659 A.P.R. 273, refd to. [para. 36].

Nova Scotia v. Walsh - see Walsh v. Bona.

Egan and Nesbit v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; 182 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 36].

Vriend et al. v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; 224 N.R. 1; 212 A.R. 237; 168 W.A.C. 237, refd to. [para. 36].

M. v. H., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3; 238 N.R. 179; 121 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 36].

Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium et al. v. Canada (Minister of Justice) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1120; 263 N.R. 203; 145 B.C.A.C. 1; 237 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 36].

Gosselin v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 238; 331 N.R. 337, refd to. [para. 36].

Gosselin v. Quebec (Procureur général), [2002] 4 S.C.R. 429; 298 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 37].

Falkiner et al. v. Director of Income Maintenance (Ont.) et al. (2002), 159 O.A.C. 135; 59 O.R.(3d) 481 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Falkiner v. Ontario (Ministry of Community and Social Services) - see Falkiner et al. v. Director of Income Maintenance (Ont.) et al.

Dartmouth/Halifax County Regional Housing Authority v. Sparks (1993), 119 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 330 A.P.R. 91 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Rehberg (J.) (1993), 127 N.S.R.(2d) 331; 355 A.P.R. 331 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 40].

Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v. Newfoundland Association of Public Employees, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 381; 326 N.R. 25; 242 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 113; 719 A.P.R. 113, refd to. [para. 43].

Hodge v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 357; 326 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 53].

Auton et al. v. British Columbia (Minister of Health) et al., [2004] 3 S.C.R. 657; 327 N.R. 1; 206 B.C.A.C. 1; 338 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 61].

Hislop et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2007] 1 S.C.R. 429; 358 N.R. 197; 222 O.A.C. 324, refd to. [para. 62].

Downey v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal (N.S.) et al. (2008), 267 N.S.R.(2d) 364; 853 A.P.R. 364 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

Wynberg et al. v. Ontario (2006), 213 O.A.C. 48 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

Howe v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2007), 244 B.C.A.C. 122; 403 W.A.C. 122 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

Public Service Employee Relations Commission (B.C.) v. British Columbia Government and Service Employees' Union, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3; 244 N.R. 145; 127 B.C.A.C. 161; 207 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 74].

Meiorin - see Public Service Employee Relations Commission (B.C.) v. British Columbia Government and Service Employees' Union.

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, refd to. [para. 76].

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, refd to. [para. 76].

Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd. - see Janzen and Govereau v. Pharos Restaurant and Grammas et al.

Symes v. Minister of National Revenue, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 695; 161 N.R. 243, refd to. [para. 76].

Workers' Compensation Board (N.S.) v. Martin et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 504; 310 N.R. 22; 217 N.S.R.(2d) 301; 683 A.P.R. 301, refd to. [para. 76].

Workers' Compensation Board (N.S.) v. Laseur - see Workers' Compensation Board (N.S.) v. Martin et al.

Eldridge et al. v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624; 218 N.R. 161; 96 B.C.A.C. 81; 155 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 78].

Health Services and Support - Facilities Subsector Bargaining Association et al. v. British Columbia, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 391; 363 N.R. 226; 242 B.C.A.C. 1; 400 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 82].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 15(1) [para. 28].

Public Utilities Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 380, sect. 67(1) [para. 6].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canadian Human Rights Review Board Panel, Promoting Equality: A New Vision (2000), pp. 106 to 113 [para. 43].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (5th Ed.) (Looseleaf Supp.), paras. 55.8 [para. 43]; 55.8(b) [para. 36].

Counsel:

Vincent Calderhead, for the appellant, Boulter;

Claire McNeil, for the appellants, Carvery, Lannon, MacNaughton, Whitman and Affordable Energy Coalition;

David Roberts, for the appellant, Nova Scotia General Government and Employees Union;

Daniel M. Campbell, Q.C., for the respondent, Nova Scotia Power Inc.;

Glenn R. Anderson, Q.C., Louise Walsh Poirier and Duane C. Eddy, for the Attorney General of Nova Scotia.

This appeal was heard on December 1, 2008, at Halifax, Nova Scotia, before Saunders, Hamilton and Fichaud, JJ.A., of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. Fichaud, J.A., delivered the following reasons for judgment for the court on February 13, 2009.