Roberts et al. v. Ontario et al., (1994) 73 O.A.C. 20 (CA)

• Judge: Houlden, Finlayson and Weiler, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: August 16, 1994
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1994), 73 O.A.C. 20 (CA)

Roberts v. Ont. (1994), 73 O.A.C. 20 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

In The Matter Of an Appeal from a Board of Inquiry pursuant to s. 41(1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, S.O. 1981, c. 53, as amended;

And In The Matter Of the Complaint and amended Complaint made by Edwin Roberts dated March 30, 1987, and July 25, 1988, respectively, alleging discrimination in services on the basis of age against Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Ontario and the Ministry of Health.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission and E. Roberts (appellants) v. The Queen in Right of Ontario and The Ministry of Health (respondent) and Charter Committee on Poverty Issues and The Canadian Disability Rights Council (intervenors)

(C10438; C10463)

Indexed As: Roberts et al. v. Ontario et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Houlden, Finlayson and Weiler, JJ.A.

August 16, 1994.

Summary:

The 71 year old Roberts, legally blind, applied in 1986 for assistance in purchasing a vision aid under the Ministry of Health's Assistive Devices Program. Roberts' applica­tion was denied because he was over the age limit. Roberts filed a complaint of discrimi­nation under the Human Rights Code. A Board of Inquiry dismissed the complaint. The age restriction, on its face, would dis­criminate against Roberts on the basis of age contrary to s. 1 of the Code. However, s. 14(1) applied to preclude any finding of discrimination, where the Assistive Devices Program was a "special program designed to relieve hardship or economic disadvantage or to assist disadvantaged persons or groups to achieve or attempt to achieve equal oppor­tunity or that is likely to contribute to the elimination of the infringement of rights under Part I" (i.e., affirmative action pro­gram). Roberts appealed.

The Ontario Divisional Court, in a judg­ment not reported in this series of reports, dismissed the appeal. The court affirmed that the Assistive Devices Program was a "special program" under s. 14(1) of the Code, therefore, its implementation could not discriminate contrary to s. 1. Roberts appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Finlayson, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal and struck the age restriction in the vision aids category of the program. The age restriction discriminated against Roberts on the basis of age and s. 14(1) was not intended to protect such discrimination.

Civil Rights - Topic 2

Interpretation of human rights legislation - A judge of the Ontario Court of Appeal stated that "a human rights code is not like an ordinary law. It is fundamental law which declares public policy. ... rules of statutory interpretation which advocate a strict grammatical construction of the words are not the proper approach to take in interpreting its provisions; focusing on the limited words of the section itself would ignore the dominant purpose of human rights legislation ... A human rights code is remedial legislation and is to be given such interpretation as will best ensure its objects are attained. ... An approach which emphasizes the role of individual provisions as expressions of the overall dominant purpose of the legislation as a whole must be taken." - See para­graph 12.

Civil Rights - Topic 939

Discrimination - Government programs - Affirmative action programs - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5588 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 5588

Equality and protection of the law - Af­firmative action programs - Protection from review - An age restriction in the vision aid category of the Assistive Devices Program, on its face, discrimi­nated against some persons in the group on the basis of age (Human Rights Code, s. 1) - Section 14(1) of the Code provided that implementation of "special programs" (affirmative action) did not infringe rights under Part 1 of the Code - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that s. 14(1) pre­cluded discrimination challenges by per­sons the program was not designed to benefit - However, where the program restriction discriminated against a person the program was designed to benefit, on a prohibited ground under s. 1, s. 14(1) did not protect the discriminatory restriction unless there was a rational connection between the prohibited ground and the restriction - The age restriction was dis­criminatory and not related to the vision aids category - Accordingly, the restriction violated s. 1, was not protected by s. 14(1) and was struck down - See paragraphs 1 to 65, 105 to 126.

Statutes - Topic 1644

Interpretation - Extrinsic aids - Legisla­tive history - Legislative debates - A judge of the Ontario Court of Appeal stated that "legislative debates are relevant to a deter­mination of the purpose of a piece of legislation" - See paragraph 20.

Cases Noticed:

Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342; 92 N.R. 110; 75 Sask.R. 82; 38 C.R.R. 232; 57 D.L.R.(4th) 231; 47 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 33 C.P.C.(2d) 105; [1989] 3 W.W.R. 97, refd to. [para. 7].

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. 12].

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. 12].

Ontario Human Rights Commission 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. 12].

Action Travail des Femmes v. Canadian National Railway Co. et al., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1114; 76 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 12].

Commission scolaire régionale de Chambly v. Syndicat de l'enseignement de Champlain et autres (1994), 169 N.R. 281 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 14].

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; 95 D.L.R.(4th) 439, refd to. [para. 16].

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. 17].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [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. 14,203; 13 C.R.R. 64, refd to. [para. 17].

Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326; 102 N.R. 321; 103 A.R. 321; [1990] 1 W.W.R. 577; 64 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 71 Alta. L.R.(2d) 273; 45 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 463; 157 N.R. 97; 125 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 349 A.P.R. 81, refd to. [para. 20].

Forget v. Québec (Procureur général) and Office de la langue française, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 90; 87 N.R. 37; 17 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 40].

Ford v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712; 90 N.R. 84; 19 Q.A.C. 69, refd to. [para. 40].

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. 40].

Silano v. British Columbia (1987), 42 D.L.R.(4th) 407 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 52].

Athabasca Tribal Council v. Amoco Canada Petroleum Co. et al. and Alberta (Attorney General), [1981] 1 S.C.R. 699; 37 N.R. 336; 29 A.R. 350, refd to. [para. 80].

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), 438 U.S. 265, refd to. [para. 84].

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. 117].

R. v. Hess; R. v. Nguyen, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 906; 119 N.R. 353; 46 O.A.C. 13; 73 Man.R.(2d) 1; 3 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 120].

Weatherall v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1988] 1 F.C. 369; 11 F.T.R. 279 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 120].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6, sect. 16 [para. 26].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 15 [para. 83].

Charter of Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-12, sect. 20 [para. 121].

Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H-19, sect. 1 [para. 9]; sect. 8 [para. 67]; sect. 10(1) [para. 9]; sect. 14 [para. 46]; sect. 22, sect. 24(1)(a), sect. 24(1)(b), sect. 25(a), sect. 25(b) [para. 59]; sect. 33, sect. 36 [para. 47]; sect. 38(1), sect. 40 [para. 74]; sect. 41(a) [para. 49]; sect. 47 [para. 59].

Individual's Rights Protection Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. I-2, generally [para. 80].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Black and Smith, The Equality Rights, in The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (2nd Ed. 1989)(Beaudoin and Ratushny eds.), pp. 597 to 598 [para. 54].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Stat­utes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 105 [para. 13].

Keene, Judith, Human Rights in Ontario (2nd Ed. 1992), pp. 165 to 166 [para. 22].

Lepofsky, D. and J. Bickenbach, Equality Rights and the Physically Handicapped in Equality Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1985)(A. Bayefsky and M. Eberts eds.), pp. 356, 357 [para. 85].

Ontario Human Rights Commission, Life Together: A Report on Human Rights in Ontario (1977), p. 35 [para. 21].

Ontario, Law Reform Commission, Litigating the Relationship between Equity and Equality (1993)(Study Paper) by Colleen Sheppard, pp. 28 and 73 [para. 28].

Ontario, Legislative Assembly Debates (December 1, 1981), vol. 4, p. 4114 [para. 20].

Ontario, Legislative Assembly Debates (December 9, 1980), vol. 5, pp. 5096 to 5098 [para. 20].

Orton, H., Section 15, Benefits Programs and Other Benefits at Law: The Inter­pretation of Section 15 of the Charter since Andrews (1990), 19 Man. L.J. 288, p. 299 [para. 119].

Tarnopolsky, W.S., The Equality Rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1983), 61 Can. Bar Rev. 242, in Laskin's Canadian Constitutional Law (5th Ed. 1986)(N. Finkelstein ed.), gen­erally [para. 84].

Vizkelety, Affirmative Action, Equality and the Courts: Comparing Action Tra­vail des Femmes v. CN and Apsit and the Manitoba Rice Farmers Association v. The Manitoba Human Rights Com­mission (1990), 4 C.J.W.L. 287, p. 289 [para. 32].

Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (1989) [para. 57].

Counsel:

Joanne Rosen, for the appellant, the Ontario Human Rights Commission;

Anne Molloy and Janet Budgell, for the appellant, E. Roberts;

Douglas K. Gray, for the respondent;

Mary Cornish, for the interveners.

This appeal was heard on April 12-13, 1994, before Houlden, Finlayson and Weiler, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal was released on August 16, 1994, and the fol­lowing opinions were filed:

Weiler, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 66;

Finlayson, J.A., dissenting - see para­graphs 67 to 104;

Houlden, J.A. - see paragraphs 105 to 127.