MacNeill v. Canada (Attorney General), (1994) 169 N.R. 368 (FCA)

• Judge: Hugessen, Desjardins and Robertson, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: March 29, 1994
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1994), 169 N.R. 368 (FCA)

MacNeill v. Can. (A.G.) (1994), 169 N.R. 368 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

In the Matter of an application to review and set aside, pursuant to section 18 of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7 as amended, a decision of an Appeal Board established pursuant to section 5(d) of the Public Service Employment Act, rendered by R. Valson, Chairperson, on the 1st day of September, 1992, respecting an appeal pursuant to section 31 of the Public Service Employment Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-33

(P.S.C. file No. 92-DVA-0659R)

Betty MacNeill (respondent/applicant) v. Attorney General of Canada (appellant/respondent)

(A-404-93)

Indexed As: MacNeill v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court of Appeal

Hugessen, Desjardins and Robertson, JJ.A.

May 3, 1994.

Summary:

A government department recommended the release of a public servant who became incapacitated from a job related injury. The employee appealed the recommendation. A public service appeal board dismissed her appeal. She then applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported 64 F.T.R. 41, allowed the application, set aside the board's decision and remitted the case for recon­sideration. The Attorney General of Canada appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal, Hugessen, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the Trial Division and dis­missed the public servant's judicial review application. Desjardins and Robertson, JJ.A., agreed that the appeal should be allowed, but expressed differing reasons for arriving at this result.

Civil Rights - Topic 985

Discrimination - Employment - Duty to accommodate - Section 31 of the Public Service Employment Act empowered deputy heads of public service departments to recommend to the Public Service Com­mission an employee's release or demotion for reasons of incapacity or incompetence - The Federal Court of Appeal discussed whether s. 31 constituted either direct or adverse effect discrimination contrary to the Canadian Human Rights Act - The court also discussed the related issues of whether s. 31 included a bona fide occu­pational requirement or gave rise to a duty to ac­commodate.

Civil Rights - Topic 989

Discrimination - Employment - On basis of physical or mental handicap - [See Civil Rights - Topic 985 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 992

Discrimination - Employment - Adverse effect or indirect discrimination - [See Civil Rights - Topic 985 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 992.1

Discrimination - Employment - Adverse effect discrimination - Duty of employer to accommodate employee - [See Civil Rights - Topic 985 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 998

Discrimination - Employment - Excep­tions - Bona fide occupational requirement - [See Civil Rights - Topic 985 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7004

Federal or provincial legislation - Appli­cation of legislation - Section 31(1) of the Public Service Employment Act empowered deputy heads of public service departments to recommend to the Public Service Commission an employee's release or demotion for reasons of incapacity or incompetence - Section 31(2) provided that the employee could appeal a recom­mendation made under s. 31(1) to a public service appeal board established by the Commission - The Federal Court of Appeal discussed whether a public service appeal board established under s. 31 had jurisdiction to apply the employment related provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Labour Law - Topic 9063

Public service labour relations - The board - Jurisdiction - To enforce human rights codes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 7004 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Larsen, [1981] 2 F.C. 199 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 6, footnote 7, para. 36, para. 69, footnote 11].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Loiselle, [1981] 2 F.C. 203 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 6, footnote 7, para. 35].

Ahmad v. Public Service Commission Appeal Board, [1974] 2 F.C. 644; 6 N.R. 287 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 7, footnote 8, para. 42, para. 67, footnote 10].

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; 52 O.R.(2d) 799; 9 C.C.E.L. 185; 17 Admin. L.R. 89; 86 C.L.L.C. 17,002, refd to. [para. 8, foot­note 9, para. 57, footnote 3].

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. 8, footnote 10].

Druken et al. v. Canada (Attorney Gen­eral), [1989] 2 F.C. 24; 88 N.R. 150 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 8, footnote 11, para. 65, footnote 8].

Clare v. Canada (Attorney General), [1993] 1 F.C. 641; 149 N.R. 303 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 12, para. 43].

Canadian National Railway Co. v. Niles and Canadian Human Rights Commis­sion (1992), 142 N.R. 188 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 12].

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. 20, footnote 17, para. 58, footnote 4].

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. 21, footnote 18].

Renaud v. Board of Education of Central Okanagon School District No. 23 and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 523, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 970; 141 N.R. 185; 13 B.C.A.C. 245; 24 W.A.C. 245, refd to. [para. 21, footnote 21].

Human Rights Commission (Ont.), Dunlop, Hall and Gray v. Etobicoke (Borough), [1982] 1 S.C.R. 202; 40 N.R. 159, refd to. [para. 24, footnote 22].

Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Labour Relations Board (Ont.) et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5; 122 N.R. 361; 47 O.A.C. 271, refd to. [para. 31].

Vincer v. Canada (Attorney General), [1988] 1 F.C. 714; 82 N.R. 352 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Viola et al., [1991] 1 F.C. 373; 123 N.R. 83 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Pitawanakwat v. Canadian Human Rights Commission et al. (1987), 125 N.R. 237 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Burke et al. v. Canadian Human Rights Commission (1987), 125 N.R. 239 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Dansereau v. Public Service Appeal Board (Can.) (1990), 122 N.R. 122 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

Canada (Procureur général) v. Mongrain, [1992] 1 F.C. 472; 135 N.R. 125 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 61, footnote 5].

Wardair Canada Inc. v. Cremona and Canadian Human Rights Commission (1992), 146 N.R. 69 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 62, footnote 6].

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. 65, footnote 7].

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. 65, footnote 9].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6, sect. 3, sect. 7 [para. 14]; sect. 15 [para. 23]; sect. 15(a) [para. 15]; sect. 25 [para. 14]; sect. 41 [para. 71]; sect. 50(2) [para. 47]; sect. 66 [para. 6].

Labour Relations Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 228, sect. 106, sect. 124 [para. 38].

Official Languages Act, S.C. 1988, c. 38, generally [para. 40].

Public Service Employment Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-33, sect. 5(d) [para. 30]; sect. 10 [para 68]; sect. 12 [para. 9]; sect. 21 [para. 41]; sect. 31 [para. 1 et seq.].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993), generally [para. 16, footnote 15].

Counsel:

Brian J. Saunders, for the appellant;

Andrew J. Raven, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;

Raven, Jewitt & Allen, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard in Ottawa, Ontario, on March 29, 1994, before Hugessen, Des­jardins and Robertson, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. On May 3, 1994, the deci­sion of the court was delivered, and the following opinions were filed:

Desjardins, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 29;

Robertson, J.A., concurring in the result - see paragraphs 30 to 49;

Hugessen, J.A., dissenting - see para­graphs 50 to 74.