Lebeau v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 FC 133

• Judge: Locke, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 23, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2015 FC 133;(2015), 475 F.T.R. 47 (FC)

Lebeau v. Can. (A.G.) (2015), 475 F.T.R. 47 (FC)

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: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. FE.040

Line Lebeau (demanderesse) v. Le Procureur général du Canada (défendeur)

(T-1922-13; 2015 CF 133; 2015 FC 133)

Indexed As: Lebeau v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court

Locke, J.

February 3, 2015.

Summary:

Lebeau suffered from Raynaud's disease. Her employer (Statistics Canada) provided her with a "medical/accessible parking" spot at the same rate ($100 per month) as for general parking. The employer amended its parking policy such that Lebeau no longer qualified for the $100 monthly rate, but had to pay $200 per month to keep her accessible spot. Lebeau filed a grievance. Subsequently, the employer reversed its policy and reimbursed Lebeau for the additional amount she had paid ($2,406). Before the adjudicator, Lebeau sought non-pecuniary damages, asserting that her employer's treatment had caused her pain and suffering. The adjudicator found that Lebeau had not proven pain and suffering that would justify compensation under ss. 53(2)(e) or 53(3) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Lebeau applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Civil Rights - Topic 1

General - General principles - Purpose of human rights legislation - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 1164 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1164

Discrimination - Remedies - Damages - Lebeau suffered from Raynaud's disease - Her employer (Statistics Canada) provided her with a "medical/accessible parking" spot at the same rate ($100 per month) as for general parking - The employer amended its parking policy such that Lebeau no longer qualified for the $100 monthly rate, but had to pay $200 per month to keep her accessible spot - Lebeau filed a grievance - Subsequently, the employer reversed its policy and reimbursed Lebeau for the additional amount she had paid ($2,406) - Before the adjudicator, Lebeau sought non-pecuniary damages, asserting that her employer's treatment had caused her pain and suffering - The adjudicator found that Lebeau had not proven pain and suffering that would justify compensation under s. 53(2)(e) of the Canadian Human Rights Act - The Federal Court dismissed Lebeau's application for judicial review - It was reasonable for the adjudicator to draw a negative inference from the absence of medical or other evidence corroborating the pain and suffering endured by Lebeau - The purpose of s. 53(2) was not to penalize the person who committed the discriminatory practice but to eliminate, as much as possible, the discrimination's impact on the claimant - The adjudicator had to be able to determine the extent and seriousness of the alleged harm - It was reasonable for the adjudicator to turn to the absence of medical evidence to draw his conclusions - See paragraphs 28 to 32.

Civil Rights - Topic 1164

Discrimination - Remedies - Damages - Lebeau suffered from Raynaud's disease - Her employer (Statistics Canada) provided her with a "medical/accessible parking" spot at the same rate ($100 per month) as for general parking - The employer amended its parking policy such that Lebeau no longer qualified for the $100 monthly rate, but had to pay $200 per month to keep her accessible spot - Lebeau filed a grievance - Subsequently, the employer reversed its policy and reimbursed Lebeau for the additional amount she had paid ($2,406) - Before the adjudicator, Lebeau sought non-pecuniary damages, asserting that her employer's treatment had caused her pain and suffering - The adjudicator found that Lebeau had not proven pain and suffering that would justify compensation under s. 53(3) of the Canadian Human Rights Act - The Federal Court dismissed Lebeau's application for judicial review - Lebeau had not submitted any evidence to demonstrate an entitlement for special compensation under s. 53(3) for willful or reckless discriminatory behaviour by the employer - The adjudicator's decision was reasonable - See paragraphs 33 and 34.

Civil Rights - Topic 7185

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Remedies - Damages - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 1164 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9120

Public service labour relations - Grievances - Evidence and proof - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 1164 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9126

Public service labour relations - Adjudication of grievances - Powers of adjudicators or boards - Lebeau suffered from Raynaud's disease - Her employer (Statistics Canada) provided her with a "medical/accessible parking" spot at the same rate ($100 per month) as for general parking - The employer amended its parking policy such that Lebeau no longer qualified for the $100 monthly rate, but had to pay $200 per month to keep her accessible spot - Lebeau filed a grievance - Subsequently, the employer reversed its policy and reimbursed Lebeau for the additional amount she had paid ($2,406) - Before the adjudicator, Lebeau sought non-pecuniary damages, asserting that her employer's treatment had caused her pain and suffering - The adjudicator, indicating that he had "doubts about the discriminatory nature" of the employer's policy, found that Lebeau had not proven pain and suffering that would justify compensation under ss. 53(2)(e) or 53(3) of the Canadian Human Rights Act - Lebeau sought judicial review - At issue was whether the adjudicator had erred in failing to determine whether the policy was discriminatory - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The adjudicator had assumed that Lebeau was a victim of discrimination for the purpose of analysing her entitlement to "moral damages" - This was a reasonable choice - The outcome would have been the same either way - The decision not to make a definitive ruling on the discrimination issue was reasonable - See paragraphs 23 to 27.

Cases Noticed:

Canada (Attorney General) v. Tipple (2011), 392 F.T.R. 201; 2011 FC 762, refd to. [para. 17].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 21].

Stringer v. Canada (Attorney General) (2013), 435 F.T.R. 272; 2013 FC 735, refd to. [para. 22].

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board) et al. (2011), 424 N.R. 220; 317 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 340; 986 A.P.R. 340; 2011 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 23].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Tipple (2012), 431 N.R. 257; 2012 FCA 158, appld. [para. 23].

Forest Ethics Advocacy Association et al. v. National Energy Board et al. (2014), 465 N.R. 152; 2014 FCA 245, refd to. [para. 23].

Brennan v. Canada and Robichaud, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 84; 75 N.R. 303, refd to. [para. 31].

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

Tremblay v. Canada (Attorney General), [2006] F.T.R. Uned. 115; 2006 FC 219, refd to. [para. 31].

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Warman et al. (2012), 419 F.T.R. 162; 2012 FC 1162, refd to. [para. 31].

Hicks v. Canada (Human Resources and Skills Development), 2013 CHRT 20, refd to. [para. 31].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Collins (2011), 398 F.T.R. 169; 2011 FC 1168, refd to. [para. 33].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6, sect. 53(2)(e), sect. 53(3) [para. 19].

Counsel:

Line Leduc, for the applicant;

Talitha Nabbali, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicant;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on November 23, 2014, by Locke, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on February 3, 2015.