Background
Satnam Vaid was a chauffeur for the various Speakers of the House of Commons from 1984 to 1994. On January 11, 1995, Vaid was dismissed because he allegedly refused to accept the new duties under a revised job description.
Vaid filed a grievance for his termination, and on July 25, 1995, the Board of Adjudication ruled in Vaid's favour and ordered that he be allowed to resume his employment as chauffeur. During the adjudication, Vaid claimed racial discrimination, which the Board said was not made out.
On August 17, 1995, Vaid returned to work, at which time he was told that the chauffeur's position had been changed to a bilingual one, and Vaid was sent for French language training.
On April 8, 1997, Vaid requested that he be allowed to return to work. On May 12, 1997, the Speaker's office, under then Speaker, Gilbert Parent, replied that due to reorganization, Vaid's position was being made surplus effective May 29, 1997.
Judicial history
On July 10, 1997, Vaid complained to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, claiming that the Speaker and the House of Commons discriminated against him due to race, colour, and national or ethnic origin. Vaid also claimed workplace harassment.
The complaints were referred to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Parent and the House of Commons challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear the complaint due to parliamentary privilege.
Parent and the House of Commons sought judicial review at the Federal Court, Trial Division, which was refused. This decision was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal.
Reasons of the Court
A unanimous decision of the Court was written by Binnie J.
The Court found that the first step of determining whether parliamentary privilege exists at the federal level in a particular area is to ascertain whether the existence and scope of the claimed privilege have been authoritatively established in relation the Parliament of Canada or to the House of Commons at Westminster.
If the existence and scope of the claimed privilege has not been authoritatively established, then it must be tested against the doctrine of necessity. That is, the assembly or member seeking its immunity must show that the sphere of activity for which privilege is claimed is so closely and directly connected with the fulfillment by the assembly or its members of their functions as a legislative and deliberative body, including the assembly's work in holding the government to account, that outside interference would undermine the level of autonomy required to enable the assembly and its members to do their work with dignity and efficiency.
The Court went on to find that parliamentary privilege was not so broad as to protect employment matters. Justice Binnie wrote that:
- I have no doubt that privilege attaches to the House's relations with some of its employees, but the appellants have insisted on the broadest possible coverage without leading any evidence to justify such a sweeping immunity, or a lesser immunity, or indeed any evidence of necessity at all. ... The appellants having failed to establish the privilege in the broad and all-inclusive terms asserted, the respondents are entitled to have the appeal disposed of according to the ordinary employment and human rights law that Parliament has enacted with respect to employees within federal legislative jurisdiction.
However, unrelated to the parliamentary privilege issue, the Court found that the Canadian Human Rights Act did not apply to Parliamentary employees, as their labour issues were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act. Therefore, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal did not have jurisdiction on the matter, and the appeal was allowed.
The Parliament of Canada is the federal legislature of Canada, seated at Parliament Hill in Ottawa, and is composed of three parts: the Monarch, the Senate, and the House of Commons. By constitutional convention, the House of Commons is dominant, with the Senate rarely opposing its will. The Senate reviews legislation from a less partisan standpoint and may initiate certain bills. The monarch or their representative, normally the Governor General, provides royal assent to make bills into law.
Parliamentary immunity, also known as legislative immunity, is a system in which members of the parliament or legislature are granted partial immunity from prosecution. Before prosecuting, it is necessary that the immunity be removed, usually by a superior court of justice or by the parliament itself. This reduces the possibility of pressing a member of the parliament to change his or her vote by fear of prosecution.
A tribunal, generally, is any person or institution with authority to judge, adjudicate on, or determine claims or disputes—whether or not it is called a tribunal in its title. For example, an advocate who appears before a court with a single judge could describe that judge as "their tribunal". Many governmental bodies that are titled 'tribunals' are so described to emphasize that they are not courts of normal jurisdiction. For example, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda was a body specially constituted under international law; in Great Britain, employment tribunals are bodies set up to hear specific employment disputes. In many cases, the word tribunal implies a judicial body with a lesser degree of formality than a court, to which the normal rules of evidence and procedure may not apply, and whose presiding officers are frequently neither judges nor magistrates. Private judicial bodies are also often styled 'tribunals'. However, the word tribunal is not conclusive of a body's function—for example, in Great Britain, the Employment Appeal Tribunal is a superior court of record.
Parliamentary privilege is a legal immunity enjoyed by members of certain legislatures, in which legislators are granted protection against civil or criminal liability for actions done or statements made in the course of their legislative duties. It is common in countries whose constitutions are based on the Westminster system.
The following list outlines the structure of the Government of Canada.
The Constitution Act, 1867 is a major part of the Constitution of Canada. The Act created a federal dominion and defines much of the operation of the Government of Canada, including its federal structure, the House of Commons, the Senate, the justice system, and the taxation system. The British North America Acts, including this Act, were renamed in 1982 with the patriation of the Constitution ; however, it is still known by its original name in United Kingdom records. Amendments were also made at this time: section 92A was added, giving provinces greater control over non-renewable natural resources.
The court system of Canada forms the judicial branch of government, formally known as "The Queen on the Bench", which interprets the law and is made up of many courts differing in levels of legal superiority and separated by jurisdiction. Some of the courts are federal in nature, while others are provincial or territorial.
William Ian Corneil Binnie CC QC is a former puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, serving from January 8, 1998 to October 27 ,2011. Of the justices appointed to the Supreme Court in recent years, he is one of the few appointed directly from private practice. On his retirement from the Court he was described by the Globe and Mail as " arguably the country's premier judge" [Globe and Mail September 23, 2011] and by La Presseas "peut-etre le juge le plus influent au Canada dans la derniere decennie" [La Presse December 19, 2011 p A7] and by the Toronto Star as “one of the strongest hands on the court.”
New Brunswick Broadcasting Co v Nova Scotia is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision wherein the court has ruled that parliamentary privilege is a part of the unwritten convention in the Constitution of Canada. Therefore, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms do not apply to members of Nova Scotia House of Assembly when they exercise their inherent privileges of refusing strangers from entering the House.
Judicial immunity is a form of sovereign immunity, which protects judges and others employed by the judiciary from liability resulting from their judicial actions.
Canada (AG) v Mossop, [1993] 1 SCR 554 was the first decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to consider equality rights for gays. The case is also significant as one of Justice L'Heureux-Dube's most famous dissents where she proposes an evolving model of the "family".
The supreme court is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts in many legal jurisdictions. Other descriptions for such courts include court of last resort, apex court, and highcourt of appeal. Broadly speaking, the decisions of a supreme court are not subject to further review by any other court. Supreme courts typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from decisions of lower trial courts, or from intermediate-level appellate courts.
The Foundation for Equal Families is a Canadian gay and lesbian rights group founded in 1994 following the failure of Bill 167 in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. The group's mandate is "Dedicated to achieving recognition and equality for same sex relationships and associated family rights through education and legal action". Meeting this mandate was accomplished by intervening in various precedent-setting legal cases, through representation at various pride parades and most notably in suing the Canadian federal government over failure to amend 58 pieces of federal legislation that were charter-infringing due to the definition of spouse.
Hodge v Canada , [2004] 3 S.C.R. 357 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada regarding section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court found that in considering equality rights, comparator groups are needed to demonstrate that one has suffered differential treatment. Courts may reject the rights claimant's view as to what an appropriate comparator group would be.
In countries with a parliamentary system of government, contempt of Parliament is the offence of obstructing the legislature in the carrying out of its functions, or of hindering any legislator in the performance of their duties. The concept is common in countries with a parliamentary system in the Westminster model, or which are derived from or influenced by the Westminster model. The offence is known by various other names in jurisdictions in which the legislature is not called "Parliament", most notably contempt of Congress in the United States. Actions that may constitute contempt of Parliament include:
The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina is the interpreter and guardian of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, It has the appellate jurisdiction over issues arising out of a judgment of any other court in the country, including the constitutional courts of the two entities and the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The court of appeal is the main appellate court in the judicial system of Belgium which hears appeals against judgements of the tribunals of first instance, the enterprise tribunals and the presidents of those tribunals in their judicial area. There are five courts of appeal for each of the five judicial areas, which are the largest geographical subdivisions of Belgium for judicial purposes. The division of the Belgian territory into the five judicial areas is laid down in article 156 of the Belgian Constitution. A judicial area covers multiple judicial arrondissements ("districts"), except for the judicial area of Mons. Each arrondissement has a tribunal of first instance. Further below, an overview is provided of the five courts of appeal and the judicial arrondissements their judicial area covers. It is important to note that the courts of appeal do not hear appeals against judgements of the labour tribunals; these are heard by the courts of labour.
Paul v British Columbia , 2003 SCC 55, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision in administrative law and aboriginal law. The case stands for the proposition that a provincial administrative actor granted the power to determine questions of law may adjudicate matters within federal legislative competence, including s. 35 aboriginal rights matters.
Gisda Cyf v Barratt [2010] UKSC 41 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Cindy Blackstock is a Canadian-born Gitxsan activist for child welfare and executive director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada. She is also a professor for the School of Social Work at McGill University.
