Brennan v. Can. (1987), 75 N.R. 303 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
…………………….
Bonnie Robichaud and the Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Her Majesty the Queen as Represented by the Treasury Board
Indexed As: Brennan v. Canada and Robichaud
Supreme Court of Canada
Dickson, C.J.C., McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain, La Forest and L’Heureux-Dubé, JJ.
July 29, 1987.
Summary:
Bonnie Robichaud, a member of the cleaning staff at a military base of the Department of National Defence, complained under the Canadian Human Rights Act of sexual discrimination. The complaint was based on alleged sexual harassment by Dennis Brennan, who was her supervisor and the person in charge of cleaning. Robichaud alleged that during three months of her probationary period as a lead hand Brennan pressured her into various sexual acts, threatening her with work related consequences, if she refused. The Human Rights Tribunal dismissed the complaint, finding that although the sexual approaches and incidents took place, they were uncoerced and Robichaud voluntarily participated. On review the Human Rights Review Tribunal found Brennan guilty of sexual harassment and the Department of National Defence liable for his actions. Brennan and the employer sought review.
The Federal Court of Appeal in a judgment reported 57 N.R. 116 dismissed Brennan’s application, but allowed the employer’s application and found it not liable for Brennan’s actions. Robichaud and the Canadian Human Rights Commission appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and held the Department of National Revenue liable for Brennan’s actions.
Civil Rights – Topic 1
General principles – Purpose of human rights legislation – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the primary purpose of the Canadian Human Rights Act was to eliminate discrimination and provide relief for discriminatory acts, not to punish offenders – See paragraphs 7 to 13.
Civil Rights – Topic 2
General principles – Interpretation of human rights legislation – The Supreme Court of Canada held that human rights legislation must be given such fair, large and liberal interpretation as will best ensure the attainment of its objects – See paragraphs 7 to 13.
Civil Rights – Topic 3
General principles – Status of human rights legislation – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the Canadian Human Rights Act is “not quite constitutional”, in the sense that it incorporates certain basic goals of our society – See paragraphs 7 to 8.
Civil Rights – Topic 906
Discrimination – General principles – Intention to discriminate – Relevance of – The Supreme Court of Canada held that because the Canadian Human Rights Act is essentially concerned with the removal of discrimination, as opposed to punishing anti-social behaviour, it follows that the motives or intention of those who discriminate are not a necessary element of discrimination – See paragraphs 10 to 13.
Civil Rights – Topic 993
Discrimination – Employment – Liability of employer for conduct of employee – A civilian supervisor of cleaning at a Department of National Defence base extracted sexual favours from a female probationary lead hand over whom he had authority – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Department of National Defence was statutorily liable for the supervisor’s acts under the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Courts – Topic 103
Stare decisis – Authority of judicial decisions – American decisions – The Supreme Court of Canada in determining the statutory liability of employers for discriminatory acts by their employees considered a judgment of the United States Supreme Court – See paragraph 17.
Cases Noticed:
Ontario Human Rights Commission and O’Malley v. Simpsons Sears Ltd., [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536; 64 N.R. 161; 12 O.A.C. 241, appld. [para. 8].
Insurance Corporation of British Columbia v. Heerspink, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 145; 43 N.R. 168, appld. [para. 8].
Bhinder v. Canadian National Railway Co., [1985] 2 S.C.R. 561; 63 N.R. 185, appld. [para. 9].
Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson (1986), 106 S.Ct. 2399, appld. [para. 17].
Re Nelson and Byron Price & Associates Ltd. (1981), 122 D.L.R.(3d) 340 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].
Statutes Noticed:
Canadian Human Rights Act, S.C. 1976-77, c. 33, sect. 2 [para. 8]; sect. 3 [para. 6]; sect. 4 [paras. 14, 23]; sect. 7 [para. 6]; sect. 41(2) [paras. 14, 23]; sect. 41(3) [para. 14].
Counsel:
Michael L. Phelan and K. Scott McLean, for the appellant Bonnie Robichaud;
Russell Juriansz and James Hendry, for the appellant Canadian Human Rights Commission;
Graham Garton, Q.C., for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Blake, Cassels & Graydon, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellants;
Frank Iacobucci, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.
<seg NAME=”SOLICITORS” N=”112″>Blake, Cassels & Graydon, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellants
Frank Iacobucci, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent
This case was heard on May 6, 1987, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Dickson, C.J.C., McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain, La Forest and L’Heureux Dubé, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On July 29, 1987, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered and the following opinions were filed:
La Forest, J. (Dickson, C.J.C., McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson and L’Heureux Dubé, concurring) – see paragraphs 1 to 22;
Le Dain, J. – see paragraph 23.
