Brooks, Allen and Dixon et al. v. Canada Safeway Ltd., (1989) 94 N.R. 373 (SCC)

• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, McIntyre, Wilson, Le Dain, La Forest and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 15, 1988
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1989), 94 N.R. 373 (SCC);94 NR 373;26 CCEL 1;[1989] 4 WWR 193;59 DLR (4th) 321;58 Man R (2d) 161;45 CRR 115;1989 CanLII 96 (SCC);[1989] 1 SCR 1219;[1989] SCJ No 42 (QL);JE 89-773;[1989] ACS no 42;10 CHRR 6183

Brooks v. Can. Safeway Ltd. (1989), 94 N.R. 373 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Susan Brooks (appellant) v. Canada Safeway Limited (respondent)

Patricia Allen and Patricia Dixon and the Manitoba Human Rights Commission (appellants) v. Canada Safeway Limited (respondent) and Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (L.E.A.F.) (intervenor)

(No. 20131)

Indexed As: Brooks, Allen and Dixon et al. v. Canada Safeway Ltd.

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, McIntyre, Wilson, Le Dain, La Forest and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ.

May 4, 1989.

Summary:

Three women filed discrimination complaints under s. 6(1) of the Manitoba Human Rights Act against Canada Safeway Ltd. The women argued that Canada Safeway's group sickness policy discriminated against them on the basis of sex and family status, because the policy excluded coverage for pregnant women for the seventeen weeks around delivery. The adjudicator dismissed the complaints. The women appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported 38 Man.R.(2d) 192, affirmed the dismissal of the complaints. The women appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 42 Man.R.(2d) 27, dismissed the appeal. The women appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal. The court held that the plan discriminated against pregnant women and that such discrimination constituted discrimination on the basis of sex. The court set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal and referred the matter to the adjudicator for determination of the appropriate remedies.

Civil Rights - Topic 987

Discrimination - Employment - On basis of sex - An employer's group sickness policy disentitled pregnant women from receiving benefits during a seventeen week period around delivery - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the plan discriminated against pregnant women - See paragraphs 22 to 37 - The court held further that such discrimination on the basis of pregnancy constituted discrimination on the basis of sex within the meaning of the Manitoba Human Rights Act - See paragraphs 38 to 48.

Civil Rights - Topic 988

Discrimination - Employment - On basis of family status - An employer's group sickness policy disentitled pregnant women from receiving benefits during a seventeen week period around delivery - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the plan discriminated against pregnant women and constituted discrimination on the basis of sex within the meaning of the Manitoba Human Rights Act - See paragraphs 38 to 48 - In light of this finding, the court declined to rule on whether the pregnancy discrimination constituted discrimination by reason of family status - See paragraph 49.

Courts - Topic 79

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial decisions - Prior decisions of same court - Supreme Court of Canada - In 1978 the Supreme Court of Canada in Bliss v. Attorney General of Canada, 23 N.R. 527, held that pregnancy discrimination was not discrimination on the basis of sex - In 1989, in not following Bliss, Dickson, C.J.C., for the Supreme Court of Canada stated that "with the benefit of hindsight and ten years of experience with claims of human rights discrimination and jurisprudence arising therefrom, I am prepared to say that Bliss was wrongly decided or, in any event, that Bliss would not be decided now as it was decided then" - See paragraph 40.

Cases Noticed:

Bliss v. Attorney General of Canada, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 183; 23 N.R. 527, not folld. [paras. 14, 39, 40, 41, 42, 48].

Geduldig v. Aiello (1974), 417 U.S. 484, not folld. [paras. 14, 33, 34].

General Electric Co. v. Gilbert (1976), 429 U.S. 125, not folld. [paras. 14, 33, 34, 40].

Nashville Gas Co. v. Satty (1977), 434 U.S. 136, refd to. [para. 14].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255, refd to. [paras. 22, 28, 29, 42].

Ontario Human Rights Commission and O'Malley v. Simpsons-Sears Ltd., [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536; 64 N.R. 161, refd to. [paras. 32, 42].

Brossard (Town) v. Commission des droits de la personne du Quebec and Laurin, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 279; 88 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 41].

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia v. Heerspink, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 145; 43 N.R. 168, refd to. [para. 42].

Action Travail des Femmes v. Canadian National Railway Company et al., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1114; 76 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 42].

Canadian National Railway Co. v. Canadian Human Rights Commission - see Action Travail des Femmes.

Brennan v. Canada and Robichaud, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 84; 75 N.R. 303, refd to. [para. 42].

Robichaud v. Canada (Treasury Board) - see Brennan v. Canada and Robichaud.

Century Oils (Canada) Inc. v. Davies (1988), 22 B.C.L.R.(2d) 358, refd to. [para. 46].

Canada Safeway Ltd. v. Manitoba Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 832, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 180; 37 N.R. 394, refd to. [para. 47].

Manitoba Human Rights Commission v. Canada Safeway Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. x; 58 N.R. 311, refd to. [para. 47].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Bill of Rights, R.S.C. 1970, App. III, sect. 1(b) [paras. 14, 39].

Civil Rights Act of 1964 (U.S.) [paras. 14, 33].

Human Rights Act, S.M. 1974, c. 65, sect. 6 [para. 35]; sect. 6(1) [paras. 2, 9, 10, 15]; sect. 7(2) [paras. 10, 35, 36]; sect. 7(2)(a) [para. 35].

Human Rights Code, S.M. 1987-88, c. 45, sect. 9(2)(f) [para. 10].

Unemployment Insurance Act, S.C. 197071-72, c. 48, sect. 30 [paras. 6, 39]; sect. 30(1) [para. 7]; sect. 46 [paras. 14, 39].

Unemployment Insurance Act, Amendment Act, S.C. 1980-81-82-83, c. 150, sect. 4 [para. 6].

Unemployment Insurance Act Regulations, C.R.C. 1978, c. 1576, sect. 19(h)(vii) [para. 35].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hogg, Peter, Constitutional Law of Canada (2nd Ed. 1985), p. 791 [para. 43].

Pannick, David, Sex Discrimination Law (1985), pp. 147, 148 [para. 45].

MacPherson, James, Sex Discrimination in Canada: Taking Stock at the Start of a New Decade (1980), 1 C.H.R.R. c/7, p. c/11 [para. 45].

Counsel:

Aaron L. Berg and Gordon Hannon, for the appellants;

Roger J. Hansell, Q.C., and Bruce Bowman, for the respondent;

C. Lynn Smith, for the intervenor.

Solicitors of Record:

Tanner Elton, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the appellants;

Aikins, MacAulay & Thorvaldson, Winni peg, Manitoba, for the respondents;

C. Lynn Smith, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervenor.

This appeal was heard on June 15, 1988, before Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, McIntyre, Wilson, Le Dain, La Forest and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the Court of Appeal was rendered in both official languages by Dickson, C.J.C., on May 4, 1989.

Le Dain, J., took no part in the judgment.