Potash Corp. v. Scott, (2006) 301 N.B.R.(2d) 204 (CA)

• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Court: Court of Appeal of New Brunswick
• Judge: Turnbull, Daigle and Robertson, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2006 NBCA 74
• Citation: (2006), 301 N.B.R.(2d) 204 (CA),2006 NBCA 74,301 NBR (2d) 204,271 DLR (4th) 483,45 Admin LR (4th) 233,[2006] NBJ No 306 (QL),57 CHRR 334,783 APR 204,301 NBR(2d) 204,[2006] N.B.J. No 306 (QL),271 D.L.R. (4th) 483,(2006), 301 NBR(2d) 204 (CA),301 N.B.R.(2d) 204,783 A.P.R. 204
• Date: 20 July 2006

Potash Corp. v. Scott (2006), 301 N.B.R.(2d) 204 (CA);

    301 R.N.-B.(2e) 204; 783 A.P.R. 204

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: [2006] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. JL.033

New Brunswick Human Rights Commission (respondent/appellant) v. Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan (applicant/respondent)

(97/05/CA; 2006 NBCA 74)

Indexed As: Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Inc. v. Scott et al.

New Brunswick Court of Appeal

Turnbull, Daigle and Robertson, JJ.A.

July 20, 2006.

Summary:

An employee invoked the anti-discrimina­tion provision in s. 3(1) of the Human Rights Act (N.B.) and complained to the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission that he was discriminated against by reason of age when his employment was terminated at age 65, as mandated by his employer's registered pension plan. The employer in­voked the exception in s. 3(6)(a) of the Human Rights Act, which had the effect of allowing termination under a "bona fide pension plan". A Board of Inquiry was appointed. At issue before the Board was: what criteria had to be met to find that a pension plan was a "bona fide" pension plan such to satisfy the requirements of s. 3(6)? The Board held that the bona fide occupa­tional qualification test in Meiorin applied (see 244 N.R. 145; 127 B.C.A.C. 161; 207 W.A.C. 161 (S.C.C.)). The employer applied for judicial review.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, in a decision reported 291 N.B.R.(2d) 92; 758 A.P.R. 92, allowed the application. The Meiorin test did not apply but the test in Zurich Insurance (bona fides + reasonableness) (see 138 N.R. 1; 55 O.A.C. 81 (S.C.C.)) did. The Commission appealed against the court's refusal to inter­pret the term "bona fide pension plan" in accordance with the Meiorin test. The em­ployer cross-appealed against the finding that the reasonableness aspect of the Zurich Insurance test applied.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal, Daigle, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross-appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 1189

Discrimination - Exemptions or exceptions - Differentiation on reasonable and bona fide grounds - Section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act (N.B.) prohibited employment discrimination on the basis of age - Section 3(5) provided for the "bona fide occupa­tional qualification" (BFOQ) exception to the s. 3(1) prohibition - Section 3(6)(a) provided that ss. 3(1) to 3(4) did not apply to termination of employment under a "bona fide retirement or pension plan" - At issue was what criteria had to be met to find that a pension plan was a "bona fide" pension plan such to satisfy the require­ments of s. 3(6) - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal ruled that it was imper­missible to read into s. 3(6)(a) a BFOQ test, namely, the one in Meiorin (S.C.C.) - The court also ruled that the reasonable­ness test provided by the Supreme Court of Canada in Zurich Insurance (S.C.C.) did not apply - That left the objective test: a reasonable belief, in the circumstances of each particular case, that the impugned practice was adopted honestly, in the inter­ests of sound and accepted business prac­tice, and not for the purpose of defeating legislatively protected rights - See para­graphs 42 to 82.

Civil Rights - Topic 7115

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Practice - Judicial review (incl. standard of review) - An employee invoked the anti-discrimination provision in s. 3(1) of the Human Rights Act (N.B.) and com­plained to the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission that he was discrimi­nated against by reason of age when his employment was terminated at age 65, as mandated by his employer's registered pension plan - The employer invoked the exception in s. 3(6)(a) of the Human Rights Act, which had the effect of allow­ing termination under a "bona fide pension plan" - The Commission referred the com­plaint to the Labour and Employment Board, which was deemed a Board of Inquiry under the Human Rights Act - The Board was asked to answer the following question: what criteria had to be met to find that a pension plan was a "bona fide" pension plan such to satisfy the require­ments of s. 3(6)? - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal held that the Board's decision was reviewable on the standard of correctness - See paragraphs 4, 51 to 61.

Cases Noticed:

Meiorin - see Public Service Employee Relations Commission (B.C.) v. British Columbia Government and Service Em­ployees' Union.

Public Service Employee Relations Com­mission (B.C.) v. British Columbia Gov­ernment and Service Employees' Union, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3; 244 N.R. 145; 127 B.C.A.C. 161; 207 W.A.C. 161, consd. [paras. 1, 42].

Grismer - see Superintendent of Motor Vehicles (B.C.) et al. v. Council of Human Rights (B.C.).

Superintendent of Motor Vehicles (B.C.) et al. v. Council of Human Rights (B.C.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 868; 249 N.R. 45; 131 B.C.A.C. 280; 214 W.A.C. 280, consd. [para. 1].

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, consd. [paras. 3, 42].

Reference Re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.) - see Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration.

Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313; 74 N.R. 99; 78 A.R. 1, consd. [para. 6].

Lefebvre v. HOJ Industries Ltd.; Mach­tinger v. HOJ Industries Ltd., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 986; 136 N.R. 40; 53 O.A.C. 200, refd to. [para. 6].

Keshen v. Carrier Canada Ltd. (1989), 41 B.C.L.R.(2d) 121 (S.C.), consd. [para. 13]; not folld. [para. 77].

Prince Rupert Fishermen's Co-operative Association v. Prince Rupert Amalga­mated Shoreworkers' and Clerks' Union, Local 1674 (1978), 19 L.A.C.(2d) 308 (B.C. Arb.), consd. [para. 13].

Gerlach v. Canada Trust Co., [1990] B.C.C.H.R.D. No. 37; 14 C.H.R.R. D/2111, refd to. [para. 14]; not folld. [para. 77].

Davenport v. University of British Colum­bia, [1990] B.C.C.H.R.D. No. 32; 13 C.H.R.R. D/489, refd to. [para. 14]; not folld. [para. 77].

McCabe v. British Columbia Transit, [1990] B.C.C.H.R.D. No. 27, refd to. [para. 14].

Human Rights Commission (Ont.), Dunlop, Hall and Gray v. Etobicoke (Borough), [1982] 1 S.C.R. 202; 40 N.R. 159, refd to. [paras. 20, 63].

Human Rights Commission (Sask.) and Craig v. Saskatoon (City) and Saskatoon Professional Fire Fighters Union, Local 80, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1297; 103 N.R. 161; 81 Sask.R. 263, refd to. [paras. 20, 72].

O'Neill v. Canadian Paperworkers' Union et al., [1996] B.C.C.H.R.D. No. 39; 28 C.H.R.R. D/24, refd to. [paras. 23, 52].

McKinney v. University of Guelph et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 229; 118 N.R. 1; 45 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 45].

Greater Vancouver Regional District Em­ployees' Union v. Greater Vancouver (Regional District) (2001), 158 B.C.A.C. 231; 258 W.A.C. 231; 206 D.L.R.(4th) 220 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Voice Construction Ltd. v. Construction & General Workers' Union, Local 92, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 609; 318 N.R. 332; 346 A.R. 201; 320 W.A.C. 201; 2004 SCC 23, refd to. [para. 54].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citi­zenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 55].

Dr. Q., Re, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226; 302 N.R. 34; 179 B.C.A.C. 170; 295 W.A.C. 170, refd to. [para. 55].

Ryan v. Law Society of New Brunswick, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 247; 302 N.R. 1; 257 N.B.R.(2d) 207; 674 A.P.R. 207, refd to. [para. 55].

Minister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise) v. Mattel Canada Inc., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 100; 270 N.R. 153, refd to. [para. 55].

Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, Branch 63 v. Public Service Employee Relations Board (Alta.) and Board of Governors of Olds College, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 923; 42 N.R. 559; 37 A.R. 281, refd to. [para. 56].

Dayco (Canada) Ltd. v. National Automo­bile, Aerospace and Agricultural Imple­ment Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 230; 152 N.R. 1; 63 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 56].

Crevier v. Quebec (Attorney General) et al., [1981] 2 S.C.R. 220; 38 N.R. 541, refd to. [para. 57].

Syndicat canadien de la Fonction publique, section locale 1773 v. Shediac (Ville) (2005), 280 N.B.R.(2d) 324; 734 A.P.R. 324 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Doucet-Jones (2004), 274 N.B.R.(2d) 237; 718 A.P.R. 237 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

Gould v. Yukon Order of Pioneers, Daw­son Lodge No. 1 et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 571; 194 N.R. 81; 72 B.C.A.C. 1; 119 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 59].

University of British Columbia v. Berg, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 353; 152 N.R. 99; 26 B.C.A.C. 241; 44 W.A.C. 241; 79 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273, refd to. [para. 59].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 554; 149 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 59].

Barrie Public Utilities et al. v. Canadian Cable Television Association et al., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 476; 304 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 59].

Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15 - see Attis v. Board of Education of District No. 15 et al.

Attis v. Board of Education of District No. 15 et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 825; 195 N.R. 81; 171 N.B.R.(2d) 321; 437 A.P.R. 321, refd to. [para. 60].

Bell Canada v. Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1722; 97 N.R. 15, refd to. [para. 61].

Caldwell et al. v. Stuart et al. - see Cald­well v. Catholic Schools of Vancouver Archdiocese.

Caldwell v. Catholic Schools of Vancouver Archdiocese, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 603; 56 N.R. 83, refd to. [para. 72].

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. 72].

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. 72].

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. 73].

McCabe - see British Columbia Transit v. Council of Human Rights (B.C.).

British Columbia Transit v. Council of Human Rights (B.C.) (1990), 18 D.L.R.(4th) 1 (B.C.C.A.), not folld. [para. 77].

Harrison v. University of British Columbia (1986), 30 D.L.R.(4th) 206 (B.C.S.C.), not folld. [para. 77].

Little v. Saint John Shipbuilding and Dry­dock Co. (1980), 1 C.H.R.R. D/1, not folld. [para. 81].

Kuun v. University of New Brunswick (1983), 5 C.H.R.R. D/1901, not folld. [para. 81].

Buggie v. Moncton (City) (1984), 5 C.H.R.R. D/2307, not folld. [para. 81].

Statutes Noticed:

Human Rights Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. H-11, sect. 3(1), sect. 3(5), sect. 3(6) [Ap­pendix A].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Driedger - see Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes.

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (4th Ed. 2002), pp. 376 [para. 62]; 383, 384 [para. 6].

Tarnopolsky, Walter Surma, and Pentney, William F., Discrimination and the Law (2004 Looseleaf), generally [para. 45].

Counsel:

Christian R.C. Whalen and Seamus I. Cox, for the appellant;

Peter T. Zed, Q.C., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on November 17, 2005, by Turnbull, Daigle and Robertson, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Ap­peal.

The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered in both official languages on July 20, 2006, and the following reasons were filed:

Daigle, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 1 to 41;

Robertson and Turnbull, JJ.A. - see para­graphs 42 to 82.