Human Rights Commission (Sask.) v. Engineering Students' Society, University of Saskatchewan, (1989) 72 Sask.R. 161 (CA)

• Judge: Cameron, Vancise and Wakeling, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: January 18, 1989
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1989), 72 Sask.R. 161 (CA);1989 CanLII 286 (SK CA);56 DLR (4th) 604;[1989] SJ No 35 (QL);10 CHRR 5636;72 Sask R 161

HRC v. Eng. Students' Soc. (1989), 72 Sask.R. 161 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (appellant) v. Engineering Students' Society, University of Saskatchewan, Tim Owen and Scott McArthur (respondents) and Paul Havemann, Ruben Richert and Joan Thorsteinson, appointed a Board of Inquiry (respondents) and Brent Waldo, Christopher Goulard and David Hoffer (parties) and Arlene Franko, Susan Dusel, Sally Chaster and Mary Wilson on behalf of themselves as members of the Saskatchewan Coalition Against Pornography and on behalf of all members of the Saskatchewan Coalition Against Pornography (amicus curiae)

(No. 9193)

Indexed As: Human Rights Commission (Sask.) v. Engineering Students' Society, University of Saskatchewan

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Cameron, Vancise and Wakeling, JJ.A.

January 18, 1989.

Summary:

The Engineering Students' Society, University of Saskatchewan, published two issues of a student newspaper, "The Red Eye", containing articles, headlines, limericks, cartoons, photographs and other representations belittling and ridiculing women, especially with regard to sexuality and intelligence. A board of inquiry under the Human Rights Code ruled that the material taken together and viewed as a whole violated s. 14(1) of the Code, which prohibited the publication of "any notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation" tending to foster discrimination on the basis of sex. The Society appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench in a judgment unreported in this series of reports reversed, ruling that there was no evidence that the material enhanced discrimination, that the board's interpretation of s. 14(1) was beyond the constitutional scope of the Human Rights Code and invaded the federal criminal jurisdiction and that the material did not fall within the words "any notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation". The Human Rights Commission appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal per Cameron, J.A., with Wakeling, J.A., concurring, dismissed the appeal and ruled that the material was not caught within the terms "notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation" in section 14(1). Vancise, J.A., dissented.

Civil Rights - Topic 948

Discrimination - Publication, display or broadcast - Statutory prohibition - Scope of - The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, s. 14(1), prohibited the publication of "any notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation" tending to foster discrimination on the basis of, inter alia, sex - The University student newspaper published two issues containing articles, head lines, limericks, cartoons, photographs and other representations belittling and ridiculing women, especially with regard to sexuality and intelligence - A board of inquiry under the Human Rights Code ruled that the material taken together and viewed as a whole violated s. 14(1) - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal reversed and ruled that the material was not caught within the terms "notice, sign, symbol, emblem, or other representation" in s. 14(1).

Civil Rights - Topic 7003

Federal or provincial legislation - Interpretation of human rights legislation - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal stated that statutes such as the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code should not be approached by the courts "constitutionally presumptively suspect" - See paragraphs 20, 25, 128 - Further, "while, as with other enactments, we are to determine the intention of the legislature, employing to that end the modern principle of statutory construction, we are to have particular regard in doing so to the overall purpose and special nature of human rights legislation; and we are to strive to fulfill that purpose" - See paragraphs 26 to 27, 173 to 181.

Constitutional Law - Topic 7300

Provincial jurisdiction - Property and civil rights - Regulatory statutes - Human rights codes - The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, s. 14(1), prohibited the publication of "any notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation" tending to foster discrimination on the basis of, inter alia, sex - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that s. 14(1) was intra vires the provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights and did not invade the federal criminal jurisdiction - See paragraphs 12 to 62, 125 to 158.

Statutes - Topic 1450

Interpretation - Aids or methods to determine meaning - Legislative history - Reference to prior versions or amendments - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal considered the legislative evolution of s. 14 of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code in construing the scope of the section - See paragraphs 45 to 57.

Statutes - Topic 1845

Interpretation - Intrinsic aids - Headings and section numbers - Headings and marginal notes - A judge of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in a dissenting judgment considered the heading "prohibition against publication" in the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code in deciding to construe the word "representation" in s. 14(1) to include articles - See paragraphs 179 to 180.

Statutes - Topic 2256

Interpretation - Presumptions and rules in aid - Presumption that legislature acts within jurisdiction - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal stated that in construing legislation it must be assumed that the legislature did not intend to exceed its legislative capacity in enacting the legislation - See paragraphs 20, 25, 128.

Statutes - Topic 2584

Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - Ejusdem generis rule - When rule applies - General words following particular words - The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, s. 14(1), prohibited the publication of "any notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation" tending to foster discrimination on the basis of, inter alia, sex - The University student newspaper published two issues containing articles, headlines, limericks, cartoons, photographs and other representations belittling and ridiculing women, especially with regard to sexuality and intelligence - A board of inquiry under the Human Rights Code ruled that the material taken together and viewed as a whole violated s. 14(1) - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal reversed and ruled that the material was not caught within the terms "notice, sign, symbol, emblem, or other representation" in s. 14(1) - The court applied the maxims ejusdem generis and noscitur a sociis in ruling that the word "representation" must be construed in relation to the preceding words "notice, sign, symbol, emblem" and therefore could not embrace the contents of a newspaper, particularly articles - See paragraphs 67 to 76.

Statutes - Topic 2612

Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - Interpretation by context - Noscitur a sociis - Words known by accompanying words - [See Statutes - Topic 2584 above].

Cases Noticed:

Warren v. Chapman and Manitoba Human Rights Commission, [1984] 5 W.W.R. 454; 29 Man.R.(2d) 172 (Q.B.), affd. [1985] 4 W.W.R. 75; 31 Man.R.(2d) 231 (C.A.), appld. [paras. 18, 73-75].

McKay v. R., [1965] S.C.R. 798, appld. [para. 20].

Action Travail des Femmes v. Canadian National Railway Co., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1114; 76 N.R. 161, consd. [paras. 21, 118, 180].

Peters v. University Hospital Board, [1983] 5 W.W.R. 193; 23 Sask.R. 123 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Scowby v. Glendinning, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 226; 70 N.R. 241; 51 Sask.R. 208, consd. [paras. 25, 128, 133, 141].

Reference re French Language Rights of Accused, [1987] 5 W.W.R. 577; 58 Sask.R. 161 (C.A.), consd. [paras. 30, 117].

Canadian Odeon Theatres Limited v. Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission and Huck, [1985] 3 W.W.R. 717; 39 Sask.R. 81; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 93 (C.A.), consd. [paras. 30, 117].

Ealing London Borough v. Race Relations Board, [1972] A.C. 342, consd. [para. 69].

Re Cummings and Ontario Minor Hockey Association (1979), 26 O.R.(2d) 7 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 109].

Ontario Human Rights Commission and O'Malley v. Simpsons-Sears, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536; 64 N.R. 161; 12 O.A.C. 241, consd. [paras. 118, 173].

Brennan v. Canada and Robichaud, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 84; 75 N.R. 303, consd. [para. 118].

Robichaud and Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canada - see Brennan v. Canada and Robichaud.

Pasqua Hospital v. Harmatiuk, [1987] 5 W.W.R. 98; 56 Sask.R. 241 (C.A.), consd. [para. 118].

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia v. Heerspink et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 145; 43 N.R. 168, consd. [para. 122].

Hodge v. R. (1883), 9 App. Cas. 117, consd. [para. 131].

Board of Commerce Act, 1919, and The Combines and Fair Prices Act, 1919, Re, [1922] 1 A.C. 191; 60 D.L.R. 513 (P.C.), consd. [para. 136].

Proprietary Articles Trade Association v. Attorney General of Canada, [1931] A.C. 310, consd. [para. 136].

Reference re Validity of Section 5(A) of the Dairy Industry Act, R.S.C. 1927, c. 45; (the Margarine case), [1949] S.C.R. 1, consd. [para. 138].

Margarine Case - see Reference re Validity of Section 5(A) of Dairy Industry Act.

Canadian Federation of Agriculture v. Attorney General for Quebec, [1951] A.C. 179, consd. [para. 138].

Attorney General (Que.) v. Kellogg's Co. et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 211; 19 N.R. 271, consd. [para. 142].

Reference re Alberta Statutes, [1938] S.C.R. 100, consd. [para. 144].

Saumur v. City of Quebec, [1953] 2 S.C.R. 299, consd. [para. 146].

Switzman v. Elbling and A.G. Quebec, [1957] S.C.R. 285, consd. [para. 146].

McNeil v. Nova Scotia Board of Censors, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 662; 19 N.R. 570; 25 N.S.R.(2d) 128; 36 A.P.R. 128; 84 D.L.R.(3d) 1, consd. [para. 147].

O'Grady v. Sparling, [1960] S.C.R. 804, consd. [para. 153].

Multiple Access Ltd. v. McCutcheon, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 161; 44 N.R. 181, consd. [para. 154].

Smith v. R., [1960] S.C.R. 776, refd to. [para. 155].

Kozan Furniture (Yorkton) Ltd. Estate v. Countrywide Factors Ltd., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 753; 14 N.R. 91, refd to. [para. 155].

Construction Montcalm Inc. v. Minimum Wage Commission, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 754; 25 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 155].

Thames and Mersey Marine Insurance Company Limited v. Hamilton, Fraser & Co. (1887), 12 App. Cas. 484, consd. [paras. 161, 165].

Craton v. Winnipeg School Division No. 1, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 150; 61 N.R. 241; 38 Man.R.(2d) 1, consd. [para. 163].

Heatherton Co-operative v. Grant, [1930] 1 D.L.R. 975, consd. [para. 171].

Tompset v. Tompset and Mooney, [1947] O.R. 883, consd. [para. 171].

Re Bains and Superintendent of Insurance (1973), 38 D.L.R.(3d) 756, consd. [para. 171].

Bell v. North Vancouver School District 44 Board of Trustees (1979), 16 B.C.L.R. 94, consd. [para. 171].

Skapinker v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 357; 53 N.R. 169; 3 O.A.C. 321, consd. [paras. 173, 179].

Curr v. R., [1972] S.C.R. 889, consd. [para. 173].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 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; 85 C.L.L.C. 14,023; 13 C.R.R. 64, consd. [para. 173].

Johnston v. Can. Credit Men's Trust Assn., [1932] S.C.R. 219; 58 C.C.C. 1; [1932] 2 D.L.R. 462, consd. [para. 175].

R. v. A.G.B.C., [1922] 3 W.W.R. 269; 63 S.C.R. 622, affd. [1924] A.C. 21; [1923] 3 W.W.R. 1252; [1923] 4 D.L.R. 690, consd. [para. 176].

Skinner v. Shew, [1893] 1 Ch. 413, consd. [para. 180].

Statutes Noticed:

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91(27) [para. 139]; sect. 92(13) [paras. 141, 145]; sect. 92(15) [para. 153]; sect. 92(16) [paras. 141, 145, 150].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 261, sect. 262, sect. 263, sect. 264, sect. 265, sect. 266, sect. 267, sect. 268, sect. 269, sect. 270, sect. 271, sect. 272, sect. 273, sect. 274, sect. 275, sect. 276, sect. 277, sect. 278, sect. 279, sect. 280, sect. 281, sect. 281.1, sect. 281.2 [para. 135]; sect. 262(1), sect. 281.2 [para. 156].

Human Rights Code (Sask.) - see Saskatchewan Human Rights Code.

Interpretation Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. I-11, sect. 21(1) (19) [para. 116].

Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, S.S. 1979, c. S-24.1, sect. 2(k) [para. 121]; sect. 2(n) [para. 116]; sect. 2(p) [para. 121]; sect. 3 [paras. 28, 174]; sect. 14(1) [paras. 7, 126].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Concise Oxford Dictionary (4th Ed. 1951) [para. 166].

Coté, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (1984), pp. 44-47 [para. 180].

Cross, Statutory Interpretation, pp. 116 [para. 70]; 121-131 [para. 69].

Driedger, A New Approach to Statutory Interpretation (1951), 29 Can. Bar Rev. 838, 841 [para. 70].

Driedger, Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), pp. 36 [para. 119]; 87 [para. 120].

Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada (2nd Ed. 1985), pp. 318 [para. 129]; 354 [para. 154]; 363 [para. 155].

Laskin, An Inquiry into the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights (1959), 37 Can. Bar Rev. 77, p. 104 [para. 132].

Maxwell, Interpretation of Statutes (12th Ed.), pp. 289, 297-298 [para. 70].

New Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language (1971) [paras. 166, 168, 169, 177].

Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (3rd Ed. 1956) [para. 177].

Tarnopolsky, Discrimination and the Law, pp. 336-337 [para. 61]; 337-338 [para. 16].

Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1976) [paras. 166, 168, 169, 177].

Counsel:

Milton C. Woodard, for the appellant Commission;

F.L. Dunbar, for the Engineering Students' Society;

J. Wytosky, for David Hoffer;

Graeme Mitchell, for Saskatchewan Justice.

This case was heard before Cameron, Vancise and Wakeling, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.

On January 18, 1989, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

Cameron, J.A. (Wakeling, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 94;

Vancise, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 95 to 184.