Québec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v. Montréal (Ville) et al., 2000 SCC 27

• Judge: L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 03, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2000 SCC 27;(2000), 253 N.R. 107 (SCC);253 NR 107;37 CHRR 271;50 CCEL (2d) 247;AZ-50075403;[2000] 1 SCR 665;[2000] SCJ No 24 (QL);185 DLR (4th) 385;JE 2000-941;74 CRR (2d) 80;DTE 2000T-440

HRC v. Montréal (2000), 253 N.R. 107 (SCC)

MLB Headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [2000] N.R. TBEd. MY.003

Ville de Montréal et Communauté urbaine de Montréal (appelantes) c. Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (intimée) et Réjeanne Mercier (mise en cause)

Ville de Boisbriand et Communauté urbaine de Montréal (appelantes) c. Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (intimée) et Palmerino Troilo (mis en cause)

(26583; 2000 SCC 27)

Indexed As: Québec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v. Montréal (Ville) et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour, JJ.

May 3, 2000.

Summary:

Three employers, apprehensive of the devel­opment of work-disrupting health com­plica­tions, denied permanent employ­ment to three applicants who had physical anomalies that did not functionally limit them in the em­ployment sought. The appli­cants invoked s. 10 of Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, which pro­hibited discrimina­tion on the basis of handi­cap, and filed a com­plaint with the Commis­sion des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (Que.). The Commission referred the com­plaints to the Human Rights Tribunal (Que.).

The Human Rights Tribunal, in decisions reported 25 C.H.R.R. D/412 and 25 C.H.R.R. D/407 dismissed the complaints of two applicants. In a decision reported 26 C.H.R.R. D/466, the Tribunal allowed the complaint of the third applicant. The first two applicants appealed. The employer respecting the third applicant intervened in the appeals.

The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the appeals and rejected the intervention. The court returned the matter to the tribunal of first instance for a decision regarding s. 20 of the Charter, where the onus was on the employer to justify the exclusion. The employers appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 902

Discrimination - General principles - Dis­crimination defined - Three employers, apprehensive of the development of work-disrupting health complications, denied permanent employment to three applicants who had physical anomalies that did not functionally limit them in the employment sought - The applicants invoked s. 10 of Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, which prohibited discrimination on the basis of handicap, and filed a com­plaint, which was successful - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Charter's objectives, namely the right to equality and protection against discrimina­tion, could not be achieved unless it was recognized that discriminatory acts could be based as much on perception and myths as on the existence of actual functional limitations - Since the very nature of dis­crimination was often subjective, assi­gning the burden of proving the objective exist­ence of functional limitations to a victim of discrimination would be to give that person a virtually impossible task - Func­tional limitations often existed only in the mind of other people, in this case, that of the employer - See paragraphs 33 to 41.

Civil Rights - Topic 989

Discrimination - Employment - On basis of physical or mental handicap - Three employers, apprehensive of the develop­ment of work-disrupting health complica­tions, denied permanent employment to three applicants who had physical anoma­lies that did not functionally limit them in the employment sought - The applicants invoked s. 10 of Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, which pro­hibited discrimination on the basis of handicap, and filed a complaint, which was successful - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the liberal and purposive method of interpretation along with the contextual approach, which included an analysis of the objectives of human rights legislation, the way in which the word "handicap" and other similar terms have been interpreted elsewhere in Canada, the legislative his­tory, the intention of the legislature and the other provisions of the Charter, supported a broad definition of the word "handicap", which did not necessitate the presence of functional limitations and which recog­nized the subjective component of any discrimination based on this ground - See paragraphs 26 to 71.

Civil Rights - Topic 989

Discrimination - Employment - On basis of physical or mental handicap - Three employers, apprehensive of the develop­ment of work-disrupting health complica­tions, denied permanent employment to three applicants who had physical anoma­lies that did not functionally limit them in the employment sought - The applicants invoked s. 10 of Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, which pro­hibited discrimination on the basis of handicap, and filed a complaint, which was successful - The Supreme Court of Canada proposed a series of guidelines to facilitate interpretation and, at the same time, allow courts to develop the notion of handicap consistently with various biomedical, social or technological factors - The court stated: "Thus, a 'handicap' may be the result of a physical limitation, an ailment, a social construct, a perceived limitation or a com­bination of all of these factors. Indeed, it is the combined effect of all these circum­stances that determines whether the indi­vidual has a 'handicap' for the purposes of the Charter." - See para­graphs 72 to 84.

Civil Rights - Topic 7003

Federal or provincial legislation - General -Interpretation of human rights legislation - The Supreme Court of Canada restated that, given its fundamental and quasi-con­stitutional status, human rights legisla­tion prevailed over other legislation - The court added that because of its quasi-constitu­tional status, human rights legisla­tion had to be interpreted in light of both its context and objectives - See paragraphs 27 to 32.

Words and Phrases

Handicap - The Supreme Court of Canada interpreted the word "handicap" found in s. 10 of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-12.

Cases Noticed:

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. 27].

Craton v. Winnipeg School Division No. 1 and Winnipeg Teachers' Association No. 1 of the Manitoba Teachers' Society, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 150; 61 N.R. 241; 38 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 27].

Brennan v. Canada and Robichaud, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 84; 75 N.R. 303, refd to. [para. 27].

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

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 554; 149 N.R. 1; 100 D.L.R.(4th) 658, refd to. [para. 27].

Human Rights Commission (Ont.) and O'Malley v. Simpsons-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. 27].

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. 27].

St-Jacques v. Fédération des employées et employés de services publics Inc. (C.S.N.) et al., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 345; 198 N.R. 1, consd. [para. 28].

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. 29].

Gould v. Yukon Order of Pioneers, Daw­son Lodge No. 1 et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 571; 194 N.R. 81; 72 B.C.A.C. 1; 119 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 30].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 32].

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, consd. [para. 34].

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; 59 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [para. 35].

Stoffman et al. v. Vancouver General Hos­pital, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 483; 118 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Hess; R. v. Nguyen, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 906; 119 N.R. 353; 46 O.A.C. 13; 73 Man.R.(2d) 1; 3 W.A.C. 1; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 289; 79 C.R.(3d) 332; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Sheldon S., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 254; 110 N.R. 321; 41 O.A.C. 81; 77 C.R.(3d) 273; 57 C.C.C.(3d) 115; 49 C.R.R. 79, refd to. [para. 35].

McKinney v. University of Guelph et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 229; 118 N.R. 1; 45 O.A.C. 1; 76 D.L.R.(4th) 545, refd to. [para. 35].

Tétreault-Gadoury v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 22; 126 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 35].

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. 35].

Egan and Nesbit v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; 182 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 35].

Thibaudeau v. Minister of National Rev­enue, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 627; 182 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 35].

Battlefords and District Co-operative Ltd. v. Gibbs and Human Rights Commission (Sask.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 566; 203 N.R. 131; 148 Sask.R. 1; 134 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 35].

Adler et al. v. Ontario et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 609; 204 N.R. 81; 95 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 35].

Benner v. Canada (Secretary of State), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 358; 208 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 35].

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. 35].

Law v. Minister of Employment and Im­migration, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497; 236 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 35].

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. 37].

Forget v. Québec (Procureur général) and Office de la langue française, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 90; 87 N.R. 37; 17 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 37].

Action Travail des Femmes v. Canadian National Railway Co. et al., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1114; 76 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 37].

Da­vidson v. Slaight Communi­cations Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183; 59 D.L.R.(4th) 416, refd to. [para. 42].

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. 42].

Godbout v. Longueuil (Ville), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 844; 219 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 42].

Brossard (Town) v. Commission des droits de la personne du Québec and Laurin, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 279; 88 N.R. 321; 18 Q.A.C. 164, refd to. [para. 45].

Central Alberta Dairy Pool v. Human Rights Commission (Alta.), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 489; 113 N.R. 161; 111 A.R. 241, refd to. [para. 45].

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. 46].

Labelle v. Air Canada (1983), 4 C.H.R.R. D/1311 (Can. Trib.), refd to. [para. 48].

De Jong v. Horlacher Holdings Ltd. (1989), 10 C.H.R.R. D/6283 (B.C.H.R.C.), refd to. [para. 48].

Matlock v. Canora Holdings Ltd. (1983), 4 C.H.R.R. D/1576 (B.C. Bd. Inq.), refd to. [para. 48].

St. Thomas v. Canada (Armed Forces) (1991), 14 C.H.R.R. D/301 (Can. Trib.), refd to. [para. 48].

Davison v. St. Paul Lutheran Home of Melville, Saskatchewan (1992), 15 C.H.R.R. D/81 (Sask. Bd. Inq.), refd to. [para. 48].

Thwaites v. Canada (Armed Forces) (1993), 19 C.H.R.R. D/259 (Can. Trib.), refd to. [para. 48].

Bahlsen v. Canada (Minister of Transport), [1997] 1 F.C. 800 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

Cinq-Mars v. Transports Provost Inc. (1988), 9 C.H.R.R. D/4704 (Can. Trib.), refd to. [para. 51].

Gravel v. St-Léonard (City), [1978] 1 S.C.R. 660; 17 N.R. 486, refd to. [para. 53].

Commission des droits de la personne du Québec v. Laval (Ville), [1983] C.S. 961 (Que.), consd. [para. 56].

Commission des droits de la personne du Québec v. Paquet, [1981] C.P. 78 (Que.), refd to. [para. 58].

Commission des droits de la personne du Québec v. Héroux (1981), 2 C.H.R.R. D/388 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 58].

Commission des droits de la personne du Québec v. Côte St-Luc (Cité), [1982] C.S. 795 (Que.), refd to. [para. 58].

Huppe v. Régie de l'assurance-automobile du Québec, J.E. 84-303 (Que. P.C.), refd to. [para. 58].

Commission des droits de la personne du Québec v. Montréal-Nord (Ville), [1990] R.J.Q. 2765 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

Québec (Commission des droits de la personne) v. Montréal (Communauté urbaine) (1992), 16 C.H.R.R D/141 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 62].

Québec (Commission des droits de la personne) v. Lessard, Beaucage, Lemieux Inc. (1994), 19 C.H.R.R. D/441 (Que. Trib.), refd to. [para. 62].

Commission des droits de la personne du Québec v. Montréal (Ville), D.T.E. 94T-600 (T.D.P.), refd to. [para. 62].

Commission des droits de la personne du Québec v. Montréal (Ville), [1994] R.J.Q. 2097 (T.D.P.), refd to. [para. 62].

Superintendent of Motor Vehicles (B.C.) et al. v. Council of Human Rights (B.C.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 868; 249 N.R. 45; 131 B.C.A.C. 280; 214 W.A.C. 280, refd to. [para. 80].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 15(1) [para. 4].

Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-12, preamble [para. 33]; sect. 10, sect. 16, sect. 20, sect. 20.1, sect. 49, sect. 57, sect. 71, sect. 74, sect. 78, sect. 80, sect. 84 [para. 4].

Interpretation Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. I-16, sect. 40 [para. 33].

Secure the handicapped in the exercise of their rights, An Act to, R.S.Q. 1977, c. E-20.1, sect. 1(g) [para. 4].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bickenbach, Jerome E., Physical Disability and Social Policy (1993), generally [para. 77].

Brun, Henri, et Guy Tremblay, Droit constitutionnel, 3e éd., 1997, p. 1083 [para. 61].

Canada, Report of the Commission on Equality in Employment (1984), p. 2 [para. 37].

Côté, Pierre-André, Interprétation des lois, 3e éd., 1999, pp. 355-356 [paras. 31, 32]; 530-531 [para. 60].

Driedger, Elmer A., The Construction of Statutes (3rd Ed. 1994), pp. 3 [para. 31]; 383-384 [para. 29].

Lepofsky, David M., and Bickenbach, Jerome E., Equality Rights and the Phy­si­cally Handicapped, in Bayefsky, Anne F., Eberts, Mary, eds., Equality Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1985), pp. 343 [para. 78]; 346 [para. 49].

McKenna, Ian B., Legal Rights for Persons with Disabilities in Canada: Can the Impasse be Resolved? (1997-98), 29 Ottawa L. Rev. 153, pp. 163-164 [para. 80]; 164 [para. 78].

Proulx, Daniel, La discrimination fondée sur le handicap: étude comparée de la Charte québécoise (1996), 56 R. du B. 317, pp. 324-328 [para. 74]; 416 [para. 78]; 420 [para. 67]; 422 [para. 22].

Québec, Assemblée nationale, Commission permanente de la justice, Journal des débats: Commissions parlementaires, 3e sess., 32e lég., no 230, December 16, 1982, pp. B-11626, B-11627 [para. 60].

United Nations, World Programme of Action concerning Disabled Persons, A.G. Res. 37/52, 90th Plenary Session, December 3, 1982, generally [para. 74].

World Health Organization, International Classification of Impairments, Disabil­ities and Handicaps: A manual of classi­fication relating to the consequences of disease (1988), generally [para. 74].

Counsel:

Diane Lafond, for the appellant, Ville de Montréal;

Guy Lemay, Odette Jobin-Laberge and Yann Bernard, for the appellant, Ville de Boisbriand;

Pierre-Yves Boisvert, for the appellant, Communauté urbaine de Montréal;

Béatrice Vizkelety, for the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse;

Jean-René Maranda, for the mise en cause, Réjeanne Mercier.

Solicitors of Record:

Jalbert, Séguin, Verdon, Caron, Mahoney, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellant, Ville de Montreal;

Lavery, de Billy, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellant, Ville de Boisbriand;

Leduc, Bélanger, Boisvert, Laurendeau, Rivard, Montreal, Quebec, for the appel­lant, the Communauté urbaine de Mont­real;

Béatrice Vizkelety, Montreal, Quebec, for the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse;

Jean-René Maranda, Montreal, Quebec, for the mise en cause, Réjeanne Mercier.

This appeal was heard on November 8, 1999, by L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Mc­Lachlin, Iacobucci, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on May 3, 2000, by L'Heureux-Dubé, J.