Human Rights Commission (Sask.) and Chambers v. Saskatchewan (Minister of Social Services), (1988) 72 Sask.R. 115 (CA)

• Judge: Vancise, Wakeling and Sherstobitoff, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: June 24, 1988
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1988), 72 Sask.R. 115 (CA);1988 CanLII 212 (SK CA);52 DLR (4th) 253;[1988] 5 WWR 446;72 Sask R 115;9 CHRR 5181

HRC v. Sask. (1988), 72 Sask.R. 115 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (appellant) and Murray Chambers (complainant) v. Government of Saskatchewan Department of Social Services (respondent)

(No. 9545)

Indexed As: Human Rights Commission (Sask.) and Chambers v. Saskatchewan (Minister of Social Services)

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Vancise, Wakeling and Sherstobitoff, JJ.A.

June 24, 1988.

Summary:

A single childless male alleged discrimination on the basis of marital status because he received a lesser amount of financial assistance under the Saskatchewan Assistance Plan than a married childless person. A board of inquiry appointed under the Human Rights Code dismissed the complaint.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal on the ground that services offered to the public was a question of fact and therefore, not reviewable on appeal. See 62 Sask.R. 263. The complainant and the Human Rights Commission appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 6166

Judicial review - Statutory appeal - Grounds for review - Error of law - Interpretation of statute - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that it had jurisdiction to examine the interpretation placed upon the statutory phrase "offered to the public" in s. 12 of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code - The court stated that the phrase involved some complexity and a determination of whether it had a special meaning in the context of human rights and was a question of law - See paragraphs 14 to 18.

Civil Rights - Topic 2

General principles - Interpretation of human rights legislation - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal affirmed that human rights legislation must be given a broad and liberal interpretation to ensure that the purpose and effect of the legislation was achieved - See paragraphs 19 to 21.

Civil Rights - Topic 921

Discrimination - Marital status - General - The Saskatchewan Assistance Plan paid a lesser amount of benefits to a single childless male than to a married childless person - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that the plan discriminated on the basis of marital status contrary to the Human Rights Code - See paragraphs 42 to 44.

Civil Rights - Topic 926

Discrimination - Government programs - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 921 above].

Civil Rights - Topic 964

Discrimination - Facilities and services customarily available to public - Public service or facility - What constitutes - To determine whether the provision of financial assistance to persons in need was a service covered by the Human Rights Code, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal construed the meaning of "offered to the public" in section 12 of the Code - See paragraphs 19 to 41.

Civil Rights - Topic 964

Discrimination - Facilities and services customarily available to public - Public service or facility - What constitutes - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that the provision of financial assistance to persons in need was a service offered to the public covered by s. 12 of the Human Rights Code - Accordingly, the government was prohibited from discriminating among the groups eligible for financial assistance - See paragraphs 19 to 44.

Civil Rights - Topic 967

Discrimination - Facilities and services customarily offered to public - Discrimination on basis of family or marital status - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that the provision of financial assistance to persons in need was a service offered to the public within the meaning of s. 12 of the Human Rights Code - Therefore, the government was prohibited from discriminating against those persons and groups eligible for benefits - The court held that the plan discriminated on the basis of marital status because it paid less to a single childless male than to a married childless male.

Words and Phrases

Offered to the public - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal construed the meaning of "offered to the public" in s. 12 of the Human Rights Code, S.S. 1979, c. S-24.1.

Cases Noticed:

Peters and Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. University Hospital Board, [1983] 5 W.W.R. 193; 23 Sask.R. 123; 147 D.L.R.(3d) 385 (C.A.), consd. [para. 12].

Gomez v. City of Edmonton et al. (1982), 3 C.H.R.R. 882, refd to. [para. 16].

Morrell v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission (1985), 6 C.H.R.R. 3021, refd to. [para. 16].

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. [para. 19].

Action Travail des Femmes and the Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canadian National Railway Company, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1114; 76 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 20].

Brennan v. Canada and Robichaud, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 84; 75 N.R. 305, refd to. [para. 20].

Canadian Odeon Theatres Ltd. v. Human Rights Commission (Sask.) and Huck (1985), 39 Sask.R. 81; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 93, appld. [para. 21].

Bailey et al. and Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Minister of National Revenue (1980), 1 C.H.R.R. 193, refd to. [para. 33].

LeDeuff v. Canada Employment and Immigration (1986), 8 C.H.R.R. 3690, revd. 9 C.H.R.R. 4479, refd to. [para. 34].

Hum v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police (1986), 8 C.H.R.R. 3748, refd to. [para. 36].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Human Rights Code, S.C. 1976-77, c. 33, sect. 5 [para. 33].

Saskatchewan Assistance Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. S-8, generally [paras. 2, 4, 8, 25]; sect. 7, sect. 14(1)(a), sect. 14(1)(b) [para. 24]; sect. 14 [para. 25]; sect. 25 [para. 42].

Saskatchewan Assistance Regulations, Reg. 78/66, generally [paras. 4, 46]; sect. 6, sect. 7, sect. 8 [para. 25]; sect. 25 [para. 4]; sect. 25A (Schedule II) [paras. 4, 42].

Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, S.S. 1979, c. S-24.1, generally [paras. 15, 19, 20, 24, 26, 31, 32, 44]; sect. 9, sect. 10, sect. 11, sect. 12, sect. 13, sect. 14, sect. 15, sect. 16, sect. 17, sect. 18, sect. 19 [para. 26]; sect. 12 [paras. 2, 8, 22]; sect. 12(1) [paras. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 13, 22, 31, 40]; sect. 27(1) [para. 2]; sect. 28(1) [para. 4]; sect. 32 [para. 11]; sect. 43 [paras. 27, 28]; sect. 44 [paras. 27, 28, 31].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Greschner, Why Chambers is Wrong: A Purposive Interpretation of "Offered to the Public" (l988), 1 Sask. L. Rev. [para. 31].

Counsel:

M. Woodard, for the appellant;

L. Kowalchuk, for the complainant;

D. McKillop, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Vancise, Wakeling and Sherstobitoff, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. On June 24, 1988, Vancise, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.