Newfoundland Association of Public Employees v. Newfoundland et al., (1996) 140 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 63 (SCC)

• Judge: Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 29, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1996), 140 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 63 (SCC);1996 CanLII 190 (SCC);140 Nfld & PEIR 63;[1996] SCJ No 54 (QL);28 CHRR 224;39 Admin LR (2d) 1;134 DLR (4th) 1;196 NR 212;438 APR 63;[1996] 2 SCR 3

NAPE v. Nfld. (1996), 140 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 63 (SCC);

    438 A.P.R. 63

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Newfoundland Association of Public Employees (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Newfoundland and Newfoundland Hospital and Nursing Home Association, on behalf of Green Bay Health Care Centre (respondents)

(24525)

Indexed As: Newfoundland Association of Public Employees v. Newfoundland et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

May 2, 1996.

Summary:

A female employee with seniority brought a grievance on the basis of sex discrimina­tion in the filling of a position. The arbitra­tion board found that the discrimination was permitted as a bona fide occupational quali­fication. The union applied for judicial review to set aside the award.

The Newfoundland Supreme Court, Trial Division, in a decision reported at 81 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 201; 255 A.P.R. 201, set aside the board's decision and remitted the matter for consideration. The employer appealed.

The Newfoundland Court of Appeal, Ca­meron, J.A., dissenting, in a decision report­ed at 125 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271; 389 A.P.R. 271, allowed the appeal and reinstated the decision of the arbitration board. The union appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Arbitration - Topic 8308.2

Judicial review - Grounds - General - Interpretation of law v. interpretation of an agreement - [See Arbitration - Topic 8311 ].

Arbitration - Topic 8311

Judicial review - Grounds - Mistake - Error in statute interpretation - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "it is a generally accepted principle that a deci­sion of a properly constituted labour arbi­tration board in the interpretation of a collective agreement should not be inter­fered with by a court unless it is patently unreasonable ... However, when such a tribunal interprets and applies questions of general law, such as application of the [Human Rights] Code, the Board's decision is reviewable on a standard of correctness" - See paragraph 12.

Civil Rights - Topic 984

Discrimination - Employment - Contract­ing out or waiver of statutory rights - [See Civil Rights - Topic 998 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 987

Discrimination - Employment - On basis of sex - Section 10(1) of the Newfound­land Human Rights Code provided that a bona fide occupational qualification was an exception to the prohibition against dis­crimination - A nursing home, bound by a collective agreement that prohibited dis­crimination, hired a male personal care attendant for its male patients - A female employee grieved that she was discrimi­nated against on the basis of sex - An arbitration board concluded that the Code could be read together with the collective agreement, determined that there was a bona fide occupational qualification and dismissed the grievance - The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the Board's deci­sion - The Board's method of interpreta­tion, reading the collective agreement in harmony with the Code, was not patently unreasonable - See paragraphs 30 to 37.

Civil Rights - Topic 998

Discrimination - Employment - Excep­tions - Bona fide occupational requirement or qualification - Section 10(1) of the Newfoundland Human Rights Code pro­vided that a bona fide occupational quali­fication was an exception to the prohibi­tion against discrimination - A collective agreement prohibited discrimination - The Supreme Court of Canada held that parties can contract out of human rights legisla­tion if the effect is to raise and further protect the human rights of people affected - Accordingly, the parties were entitled to contract out of the bona fide occupational requirement provided in the Code and prevent the employer from discriminating in the employment process - See para­graphs 15 to 28.

Contracts - Topic 6584

Illegal contracts - Waiver or contracting out of statute - When permitted - [See Civil Rights - Topic 998 ].

Contracts - Topic 6585

Illegal contracts - Waiver or contracting out of statute - When not permitted - [See Civil Rights - Topic 998 ].

Labour Law - Topic 9710

Public service labour relations - Collective agreement - Arbitration - Judicial review - [See Arbitration - Topic 8311 ].

Waiver - Topic 10

General principles - Waiver of statutory benefit - [See Civil Rights - Topic 998 ].

Cases Noticed:

Alberta Union of Provincial Employees v. University Hospitals Board, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 201; 126 N.R. 32; 117 A.R. 156; 2 W.A.C. 156, refd to. [para. 12].

McLeod et al. v. Egan et al., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 517; 2 N.R. 443, refd to. [para. 12].

MacLeod, Re - see McLeod et al. v. Egan et al.

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Syndicat des employés de production du Québec et de l'Acadie, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 412; 55 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 13].

Syndicat des employés de production du Québec et de l'Acadie v. Canada Labour Relations Board - see Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Syndicat des employés de production du Québec et de l'Acadie.

Human Rights Commission (Ont.), Dunlop, Hall and Gray v. Etobicoke (Borough), [1982] 1 S.C.R. 202; 40 N.R. 159, refd to. [paras. 17, 42].

Ontario Human Rights Commission - see Human Rights Commission (Ont.).

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. 18].

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. 18].

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, refd to. [para. 22].

Action Travail des Femmes v. Canadian National Railway Co. et al., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1114; 76 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 22].

Canadian National Railway Co. v. Canadian Human Rights Commission - see Action Travail des Femmes v. Canadian National Railway Co. et al.

Canadian Odeon Theatres Ltd. v. Human Rights Commission (Sask.) and Huck, [1985] 3 W.W.R. 717; 39 Sask.R. 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255, refd to. [para. 24].

Dickason and Human Rights Commission (Alta.) v. University of Alberta, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 1103; 141 N.R. 1; 127 A.R. 241; 20 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 25].

Sunnyside Home for the Aged v. London & District Service Workers' Union, Local 220 (1985), 21 L.A.C.(3d) 85 (Ont.), refd to. [paras. 32, 47].

Canada (Attorney General) v. P.P.G. Industries Canada Ltd. and Pilkington Brothers (Canada) Ltd., [1972] F.C. 1078 (T.D.), revd. [1973] F.C. 745 (F.C.A.), revd. [1976] 2 S.C.R. 739; 7 N.R. 209, refd to. [para. 49].

Anti-dumbing Tribunal, Re; Transparent Sheet Glass, Re - see Canada (Attorney General) v. P.P.G. Industries Canada Ltd. and Pilkington Brothers (Canada) Ltd.

Frito-Lay Canada Ltd. v. Milk and Bread Drivers, Dairy Employees, Caterers & Allied Employees, Local Union No. 647 (1976), 77 C.L.L.C. 14,061 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 (1982), 35 O.R.(2d) 545 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Statutes Noticed:

Human Rights Code, S.N. 1988, c. 62, sect. 10(1) [para. 6].

Counsel:

V. Randell J. Earle, Q.C., and Thomas Johnson, for the appellant;

Augustus G. Lilly, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

O'Dea, Earle, St. John's, Newfoundland, for the appellant;

Stewart, McKelvey, Stirling, Scales, St. John's, Newfoundland, for the respon­dents.

This appeal was heard on February 29, 1996, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered in both official languages on May 2, 1996, and the follow­ing opinions were filed.

Major, J., (Lamer, La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iaco­bucci, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 39;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J., concurring - see paragraphs 40 to 49.