Headley et al. v. Public Service Commission Appeal Board (Can.), (1987) 72 N.R. 185 (FCA)

• Judge: MacGuigan, Pratte and Urie, JJ.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: December 12, 1986
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1987), 72 N.R. 185 (FCA)

Headley v. Public Service Comm. (1987), 72 N.R. 185 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Denise Headley and Local 613, Canada Employment and Immigration Union (of the Public Service Alliance of Canada) v. The Public Service Commission Appeal Board

(No. A-742-85)

Indexed As: Headley et al. v. Public Service Commission Appeal Board (Can.)

Federal Court of Appeal

MacGuigan, Pratte and Urie, JJ.

January 26, 1987.

Summary:

The Canada Employment and Immigration Commission advertised a closed competition for a Reception Information Clerk at an Immigration Centre. The applicant was rejected because she did not have proficiency in the use of one of the six languages specified as a basic job requirement. She appealed, arguing that she was discriminated against contrary to s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because the other clerks at the centre were not required to be proficient in one of these six languages. The Public Service Commission Appeal Board dismissed her appeal. She applied to set aside the Board's decision, alleging that the Board erred in law in not finding a contravention of s. 15. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed her application.

Civil Rights - Topic 999.2

Discrimination - Employment - Language - A Federal Commission advertised a closed competition for a Reception Information Clerk at an Immigration Centre - The applicant was rejected because she did not speak at least one of the six languages specified as a basic requirement for the position - She alleged discrimination contrary to s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing that the other reception clerks at the centre were not required to be proficient in any of the six languages - The Federal Court of Appeal held that s. 15 was not violated.

Civil Rights - Topic 8486

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Particular subjects - Equality provision (s. 15) - Two judges of the Federal Court of Appeal expressed their views on the manner in which s. 15 of the Charter should be interpreted - See paragraphs 1 to 27.

Civil Rights - Topic 8486

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Particular subjects - Equality provision (s. 15) - A judge of the Federal Court of Appeal stated that "if such a necessity for the complainant to prove more than trivial or insubstantial violation of rights applies to an unqualified freedom like that of conscience and religion, I believe it must run through all the guarantees in the Charter" - See paragraph 10 - Thus the judge concluded that when there is an allegation of a violation of s. 15 of the Charter, "the discrimination has to be more than trivial" - See paragraph 13.

Cases Noticed:

Smith Kline & French Laboratories Limited et al. v. Attorney General of Canada, [1986] 1 F.C. 274 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 7, 23].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia et al., [1986] 4 W.W.R. 242 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 7, 8, 23, 29].

Shewchuk and Ricard, Re (1986), 28 D.L.R.(4th) 429 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Rebic v. Collver Prov. J., [1986] 4 W.W.R. 401 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 7, 23,].

R. v. LeGallant, [1986] 6 W.W.R. 372 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 7, 23].

R. v. McDonald (1985), 10 O.A.C. 321; 51 O.R.(2d) 745; 21 C.C.C.(3d) 330 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Bregman and Bregman v. Canada (Attorney General) (1986), 55 O.R.(2d) 596 (Ont. H.C.J.) on appeal 18 O.A.C. 82 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

D. & H. Holdings Ltd. v. City of Vancouver (1985), 15 Admin. L.R. 209, refd to. [para. 7].

Blainey v. Ontario Hockey Association (1986), 14 O.A.C. 194; 54 O.R.(2d) 513 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Reference Re Roman Catholic Separate High Schools Funding (1986), 13 O.A.C. 241; 53 O.R.(2d) 513 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Aluminium Company of Canada Ltd. v. Ontario (Minister of the Environment) (1986), 16 O.A.C. 14; 55 O.R.(2d) 522, refd to. [para. 7].

Edwards Book and Art Limited v. Her Majesty the Queen et al., 71 N.R. 61, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 294; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321, [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481, refd to. [para. 10].

Bauer v. Appeal Board of the Public Service Commission, [1973] F.C. 626, refd to. [para. 16].

Ricketts v. Department of Transport, 52 N.R. 381, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. MacKay, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 370; 33 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 19].

Cromer v. B.C. Teachers' Fed., [1986] 5 W.W.R. 638, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321, refd to. [para. 23].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sect. 15(1).

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bayefsky, Anne F., "Defining Equality Rights" in Equality Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1985), pp. 1, 52-59 [Foot notes].

Gibson, Dale, The Law of the Charter: General Principles (1986), pp. 135 [para. 9]; 141 [para. 11].

Tarnopolsky, W., "Equality Rights" in The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Commentary (1982), p. 422 [Footnotes].

Counsel:

B. Jackman, for the applicants;

M. Thomas, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Chiasson, Jackman, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicants;

F. Iacobucci, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard in Toronto, Ontario, on December 12, 1986, before MacGuigan, Pratte and Urie, JJ., of the Federal Court of Appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal was rendered on January 26, 1987, including the following opinions:

MacGuigan, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 21;

Pratte, J. - see paragraphs 22 to 27;

Urie, J. - see paragraphs 28 to 32.