Lavoie et al. v. Canada et al., (1999) 242 N.R. 278 (FCA)

• Judge: Marceau, Desjardins and Linden, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: May 19, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1999), 242 N.R. 278 (FCA)

Lavoie v. Can. (1999), 242 N.R. 278 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] N.R. TBEd. JN.010

Janine Bailey (appellant/plaintiff) v. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada and the Public Service Commission (respondents/defendants)

(A-317-95)

Elisabeth Lavoie, Jeanne To Thanh Hien (appellants/plaintiffs) v. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada and the Public Service Commission (respondents/defendants)

(A-318-95)

Indexed As: Lavoie et al. v. Canada et al.

Federal Court of Appeal

Marceau, Desjardins and Linden, JJ.A.

May 19, 1999.

Summary:

Section 16(4)(c) of the Public Service Employment Act provided that noncitizens were not to be referred for open competition positions in the federal public service until the inventory of qualified citizens was exhausted. The section gave preferred status to citizens for public service jobs. Three permanent residents, who had chosen not to obtain citizenship, challenged s. 16(4)(c) as violating their equality rights under s. 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Di­vision, in a judgment reported 95 F.T.R. 1, held that s. 16(4)(c) discriminated against noncitizens, but was a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 of the Charter. The permanent residents appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal, Linden, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeals. Marceau, J.A., stated that the challenged legislation was not subject to s. 15(1) Charter scrutiny where it applied to all noncitizens without differentiation. Noncitizens did not have the inherent right to participate in all Canadian legislative attributes and benefits on the same level as citizens. If s. 15(1) did apply, the distinction made by the challenged legis­la­tion did not violate s. 15(1), as there was no discrimination absent an effect on human dignity. Desjardins, J.A., concurring in the result, found it unnecessary to determine whether the section imposed an invalid distinction constituting discrimination under s. 15(1) or whether the challenged legislation was beyond the scrutiny of s. 15(1). In either case, the challenged legislation had to be justified as a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 of the Charter. Desjardins, J.A., held that the Oakes test was satisfied where the challenged legislation had a pressing and substantial objective, the means chosen were reasonable, and the means were rationally connected to the objective, im­paired rights as little as possible and there was proper balance between the effect of the limitation and the legislative objective. Linden, J.A., dissenting, stated that the citizenship preference violated s. 15(1) and was not saved as a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 (failed the minimal impairment test).

Civil Rights - Topic 989.1

Discrimination - Employment - On basis of nationality, race or ethnic origin - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5650 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 5650

Equality and protection of the law - Civil or public servants - Section 16(4)(c) of the Public Service Employment Act gave preference to citizens for open competition federal public service positions - In prac­tice, noncitizens were effectively excluded from such positions - The Federal Court of Appeal held that s. 16(4)(c) did not violate s. 15 of the Charter - Marceau, J.A., stated that s. 16(4)(c) was not subject to s. 15(1) Charter scrutiny where it applied to all noncitizens without differen­tiation - Non-citizens did not have the inherent right to participate in all Canadian legislative attributes and benefits on the same level as citizens - Alternatively, the distinction made by s. 16(4)(c) did not violate s. 15(1), as there was no discrimi­nation absent an effect on human dignity - Des­jardins, J.A., found it unnecessary to deter­mine whether s. 16(4)(c) imposed an invalid distinction constituting discrimi­nation under s. 15(1) or whether s. 16(4)(c) was beyond the scrutiny of s. 15(1) - In either case, s. 16(4)(c) had to be justified as a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 of the Charter - Desjar­dins, J.A., held that the Oakes test was satisfied where s. 16(4)(c) had a pressing and sub­stantial objective, the means chosen were reasonable, and the means were rationally connected to the objective, impaired rights as little as possible and there was proportionality between the means and the objective - Linden, J.A., dissenting, stated that the citizenship pref­erence violated s. 15(1) and was not saved as a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 (failed the minimal impairment test).

Civil Rights - Topic 5671.2

Equality and protection of the law - Citi­zenship - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5650 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5650 ].

Cases Noticed:

Law v. Minister of Employment and Im­migration (1999), 236 N.R. 1 (S.C.C.), appld. [para. 1, footnote 1].

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, appld. [para. 4, footnote 2].

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; 19 C.R.R. 308, appld. [para. 5, footnote 3].

Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong (1976), 426 U.S. 88, refd to. [para. 13, footnote 8].

Chiarelli v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 711; 135 N.R. 161; 90 D.L.R.(4th) 289; 72 C.C.C.(3d) 214, refd to. [para. 16, foot­note 12].

Miron and Valliere v. Trudel et al., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 418; 181 N.R. 253; 81 O.A.C. 253; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 693; 13 R.F.L.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 18, footnote 14].

Egan and Nesbit v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; 182 N.R. 161; 12 R.F.L.(4th) 201; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 609, refd to. [para. 18, footnote 15].

Eaton v. Board of Education of Brant County, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 241; 207 N.R. 171; 97 O.A.C. 161; 142 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 18, footnote 16].

Benner v. Canada (Secretary of State), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 358; 208 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 18, footnote 17].

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. 18, footnote 18].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. c. Canada (Procureur général), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; 187 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 19, footnote 20].

Winner v. S.M.T. (Eastern Ltd.), [1951] S.C.R. 887, refd to. [para. 37, footnote 29].

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. 71, footnote 66].

Mathews v. Diaz (1976), 426 U.S. 67, refd to. [para. 87, footnotes 78, 80].

Mow Sun Wong v. Hampton (1977), 435 F. Supp. 37 (Dist. Ct. Cal.), refd to. [para. 87, footnote 78].

Sugarman v. Dougall (1973), 413 U.S. 634, refd to. [para. 87, footnote 79].

Public Employees: E.C. Commission v. Belgium, [1980] E.C.R. 3881; [1981] 2 C.M.L.R. 413; [1982] E.C.R. 1845; [1982] 3 C.M.L.R. 539, refd to. [para. 90, footnote 88].

Libman v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 569; 218 N.R. 241; 151 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 96, foot­note 92].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur gén­é­ral), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2; 58 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 25 C.P.R.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 98, foot­note 93].

Catholic Children's Aid Society of Metro­politan Toronto v. T.S. and C.S. et al. (1989), 33 O.A.C. 213; 69 O.R.(2d) 189 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 103, footnote 96].

Glynos v. Canada, [1992] 3 F.C. 691; 148 N.R. 66; 96 D.L.R.(4th) 95 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 125, footnote 112].

Pearkes v. Canada (1993), 72 F.T.R. 90 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 130, footnote 118].

Austin v. British Columbia (1990), 66 D.L.R.(4th) 33; 42 B.C.L.R.(2d) 388; 47 C.R.R. 264 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 131, footnote 119].

Steward v. Law Society of New Brunswick (1990), 108 N.B.R.(2d) 178; 269 A.P.R. 178 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 132, footnote 121].

Benmansour v. Québec (Attorney General), [1994] A.Q. No. 1259 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 132, footnote 121].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 27 B.L.R. 297; 84 D.T.C. 6467; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 141, footnote 135].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 37 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 85 C.L.L.C. 14,023; 13 C.R.R. 64, refd to. [para. 141, footnote 136].

Corbiere et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs) et al., [1997] 1 F.C. 689; 206 N.R. 85 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 144, footnote 139].

Batchewana Indian Band - see Corbiere et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs).

R. v. Turpin, Siddiqui and Clauzel, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1296; 96 N.R. 115; 34 O.A.C. 115; 48 C.C.C.(3d) 8; 69 C.R.(3d) 97; 39 C.R.R. 193, refd to. [para. 145, foot­note 140].

Schachtschneider v. Minister of National Revenue, [1994] 1 F.C. 40; 154 N.R. 321 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 147, foot­note 141].

Larbi-Odam and Others v. Member of the Executive Council for Education, CCT 2-97 para. 17 (Constitutional Court of South Africa), refd to. [para. 167, foot­note 163].

Thomson Newspapers Co. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 877; 226 N.R. 1; 109 O.A.C. 201; 159 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 176, footnote 169].

R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 55 C.R.(3d) 193; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 28 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 187, footnote 175].

R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. - see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.

R. v. Zundel (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731; 140 N.R. 1; 56 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 187, footnote 175].

R. v. Butler and McCord, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452; 134 N.R. 81; 78 Man.R.(2d) 1; 16 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 187, footnote 175].

Lavigne v. Ontario Public Service Em­ployees' Union et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 211; 126 N.R. 161; 48 O.A.C. 241; 81 D.L.R.(4th) 545; 4 C.R.R.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 194, footnote 176].

Benner v. Canada (Secretary of State), [1993] 1 F.C. 250; 155 N.R. 321 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 198, footnote 177].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 120 D.L.R.(4th) 12; 25 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 34 C.R.(4th) 269, refd to. [para. 208, foot­note 187].

Kask v. Shimizu et al., [1986] 4 W.W.R. 154; 69 A.R. 343 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 214, footnote 191].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 171]; sect. 3, sect. 6(1) [para. 123]; sect. 15(1) [paras. 20, 107]; sect. 23 [para. 123].

International Covenant on Civil and Politi­cal Rights (1966), G.A. Res. 2200; 21 G.A.O.R. Supp. 16; U.N. Doc. 1/6316, art. 25(c) [para. 84, footnote 76].

Public Service Employment Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-33, sect. 10(1) [para. 113]; sect. 12(1) [para. 114]; sect. 12(3), sect. 12(4) [para. 115]; sect. 16(1) [para. 33]; sect. 16(4)(c) [paras. 2, 33, 108].

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), G.A. Res. 217A; U.N. Doc. A/810, art. 21 [para. 83, footnote 75].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Abella, Irving and Troper, Harold, None is too Many (1982), generally [para. 121, footnote 109].

Australia, Report of the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administra­tion (1976), generally [para. 88, footnote 83].

Beatty, David, Labour is not a Commodity, in Reiter and Swan (eds.), Studies in Contract Law (1980), p. 320 [para. 161, footnote 160].

Cairns, Alan C., The Fragmentation of Canadian Citizenship in Douglas E. Williams (ed.) Reconfigurations: Ca­nadian Citizenship and Constitutional Change -- Selected Essays by Alan C. Cairns (1995), p. 157 [para. 118, foot­note 101].

Canada, Department of Citizenship and Immigration, Citizenship of Canada Act, http://cicnet.ci.gc.ca/english/aboutépo­licy­écitact_e.html>, generally [para. 216, footnote 193].

Canada, Department of Citizenship and Immigration, Fee Schedule for Citizen­ship and Immigration Services, <http:// cicnet.ci.gc.ca/english/info/fees-e.html.>, generally [para. 218, footnote 195].

Canada, Department of Justice, Equality Issues in Federal Law: A Discussion Paper (1985), pp. 49 [paras. 53, 54, footnotes 53, 54]; 50 [para. 54, footnote 54].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 1st Sess., 33rd Parliament (March 26, 1986), p. 11916 [paras. 57, 139, footnotes 57, 133].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 2nd Sess. 17th Parliament (May 1, 1931), pp. 1197 [para. 134, footnote 127]; 1198 [para. 134, footnote 128].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 2nd Sess., 20th Parliament (April 29, 1946), pp. 1015 to 1016 [para. 135, footnote 129].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 4th Sess., 10th Parliament (June 25, 1908), pp. 11318 to 11321 [para. 113, footnote 100]; 11397 [paras. 133, 183, footnotes 123, 173].

Canada, Report of the Parliamentary Com­mittee on Equality Rights, Equality for All, generally [para. 55, footnote 55].

Canada, Report of the Special Committee on the review of Personnel Management and the Merit Principle in the Public Service (September 30, 1979), p. 86 [para. 136, footnote 130].

Canada, Report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, Ca­nadian Citizenship, A Sense of Belong­ing (1994), p. 15 [para. 99, footnote 94].

Canada, Sub-committee on Equality Rights of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, First Report (October 16, 1985), pp. 66 to 67 [para. 137, foot­note 131].

Canada, Toward Equality: The Response to the Report of the Parliamentary Com­mittee on Equality Rights (1985), p. 31 [para. 138, footnote 132].

Colom-Gonzalez, Francisco, Dimensions of Citizenship: Canada in Comparative Perspective (1996), 14 Int. J. of Cdn. Studies 95, generally [para. 119, footnote 105].

Gibson, Dale, The Law of the Charter: Equality Rights (1990), generally [para. 103, footnote 96].

Hansard, House of Commons Debates - see Canada, Hansard, House of Com­mons Debates.

Head, Ivan L., The Stranger in our Midst: A sketch of the Legal Status of the Alien in Canada (1964), Cdn. Yearbook of Int. L., p. 107 [para. 66, footnote 60].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (1992 Looseleaf Ed.), vol. 2, pp. 35-32, para. 35.11(b), note 160 [para. 98, footnote 93]; 35-36, para. 35.12 [para. 100, footnote 95].

Jenson, Jane and Phillips, Susan, Regime Shift: New Citizenship Practices in Canada (1996), 14 Int. J. of Cdn. Studies 111, generally [para. 118, footnote 101].

Kymlicka, William, Multicultural Citizen­ship (1995), generally [para. 121, foot­note 110].

Lardy, Heather, Citizenship and the Right to Vote (1997), 17 Oxford J. of L. Studies 75, p. 78 [para. 120, footnote 106].

Morton, Desmond, Divided Loyalties? Divided Country?, in William Kaplan (ed.), Belonging: the Meaning and Future of Canadian Citizenship (1993), p. 50, para. 60 [para. 130, footnote 117].

Pannick, D., Comment: Principles of In­ter­pretation of Convention rights under the Human Rights Act and the discre­tionary area of judgment, [1998] P.L. Winter, p. 545 [para. 98, footnote 93].

Schuck, Peter H., The Re-evaluation of American Citizenship (1997), 12 George­town Immigration L.J. 1, pp. 13 [para. 120, footnote 120]; 14 [para. 204, foot­note 185].

Sharpe, Robert J., Citizenship, Constitution and Charter in William Kaplan (ed.) Belonging: The Meaning and Future of Canadian Citizenship (1993), p. 221, para. 236 [para. 123, footnote 111].

Sigurdson, Richard, First Peoples, New Peoples and Citizenship in Canada (1996), 14 Int. J. of Cdn. Studies 53, generally [para. 118, footnote 101].

Smith, Douglas G., Citizenship and the Fourteenth Amendment (1997), 34 San Diego L.R. 681, generally [para. 118, footnote 102].

Spiro, Peter J., Dual Nationality and the Meaning of Citizenship (1997), 46 Emory L.J. 1411, generally [para. 118, footnote 102].

Tarnopolsky, Walter S., Discrimination and the Law in Canada (1992), 41 U.N.B.L.J. 215, pp. 215 to 224 [paras. 121, 148, footnotes 109, 142]; 218, 222 to 223, notes 12, 45 [para. 160, footnote 159].

The Functionality of Citizenship (1997), 110 Harv. L.R. 1814, pp. 1818 [para. 120, footnote 107]; 1821, footnote 41 [para. 204, footnote 185].

Trisolini, Katherine A., Rights Across Borders: Immigration and the Decline of Citizenship (1997), 33 Stanford J. of Int'l. L. 165, generally [para. 118, foot­note 102].

Counsel:

Andrew Raven and David Yazbeck, for the appellant, Bailey;

David Jewitt, for the appellants, Lavoie and Hien;

Edward Sojonky, Q.C., and Yvonne Milosevic, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Raven, Allen, Cameron & Ballantyne, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant, Bailey;

Jewitt and Chapman, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellants, Lavoie and Hien:

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

These appeals were heard on January 13-14, 1999, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Mar­ceau, Desjardins and Linden, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal.

On May 19, 1999, the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

Marceau, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 28;

Desjardins, J.A. - see paragraphs 29 to 105;

Linden, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 106 to 222.