Renaud v. Central Okanagan Sch. (1992), 13 B.C.A.C. 245 (SCC);
24 W.A.C. 245
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
Larry S. Renaud (appellant) v. Board of School Trustees, School District No. 23 (Central Okanagan) and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 523 (respondents) and British Columbia Council of Human Rights, Ontario Human Rights Commission, Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada, Canadian Labour Congress, Disabled People for Employment Equity, Persons United for Self Help in Ontario (P.U.S.H.) Ontario (interveners)
(21682)
Indexed As: Renaud v. Board of Education of Central Okanagan No. 23 and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 523
Supreme Court of Canada
La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Stevenson, JJ.
September 24, 1992.
Summary:
Renaud, a school custodian who was a Seventh-day Adventist, refused to work a 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift on Fridays (when a community group rented the gym), because it fell within his church’s Sabbath. The employer was willing to accommodate him, but his union would not agree to any of the alternatives devised. The employer would not proceed without union agreement and Renaud was dismissed. He complained under ss. 8 and 9 of the British Columbia Human Rights Act of discrimination by the employer and the union on the ground of religion.
The member designate appointed by the B.C. Council of Human Rights upheld the complaint upon finding that there was prima facie adverse effect discrimination, that there was no bona fide occupational requirement that a custodian work the Friday evening shift and that neither the employer nor the union discharged its duty to accommodate. Both the employer and the union sought certiorari.
The British Columbia Supreme Court in a judgment reported 8 A.C.W.S.(3d) 283 granted the application and set aside the decision. The court ruled that there was a bona fide occupational requirement that a custodian be in the school and, accordingly, no duty to accommodate arose. Renaud appealed.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in a judgment reported 90 C.L.L.C. 17,004; 11 C.H.C.C. D/62. Renaud appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the decision of the member designate.
Civil Rights – Topic 986
Discrimination – Employment – Religion or creed – A school custodian, who was a Seventh-day Adventist, refused to work an evening shift on Fridays (when a community group rented the gym), because it fell within his church’s Sabbath – The employer was willing to accommodate him, but his union rejected any alternatives – The employer would not proceed without union agreement and he was dismissed – The custodian complained under ss. 8 and 9 of the British Columbia Human Rights Act of religious discrimination by the employer and the union – The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that there was no bona fide occupational requirement that a custodian work the Friday evening shift and that both the employer and the union contributed to the adverse effect discrimination and failed in their duty to accommodate.
Civil Rights – Topic 992
Discrimination – Employment – Adverse effect or indirect discrimination – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 986
].
Civil Rights – Topic 992.1
Discrimination – Employment – Adverse effect discrimination – Duty of employer or union to accommodate employee – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 986
].
Cases Noticed:
Ontario Human Rights Commission and O’Malley v. Simpson-Sears, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536; 64 N.R. 161; 12 O.A.C. 241; 23 D.L.R.(4th) 321, consd. [para. 1].
Central Alberta Dairy Pool v. Alberta (Human Rights Commission), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 489; 113 N.R. 161; 111 A.R. 241, consd. [para. 1].
Ontario Human Rights Commission et al. v. Etobicoke (Borough of), [1982] 1 S.C.R. 202; 40 N.R. 159, consd. [para. 7].
Canadian National Railway Co. v. Bhinder and Canadian Human Rights Commission, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 561; 63 N.R. 185, consd. [para. 7].
Trans World Airlines Inc. v. Hardison (1977), 432 U.S. 63, not folld. [para. 17].
Ansonia Board of Education v. Philbrook (1986), 479 U.S. 60, not folld. [para. 18].
Insurance Corporation of British Columbia v. Heerspink, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 145; 43 N.R. 168, appld. [para. 23].
Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local 267 v. Domtar Inc. and Human Rights Commission (Ont.) (1992), 55 O.A.C. 24, appld. [para. 36].
Statutes Noticed:
Human Rights Act, S.B.C. 1984, c. 22, sect. 8, sect. 9 [para. 5].
Counsel:
Karen Scott and Henry S. Brown, Q.C., for the appellant;
Robert E. Groves, for the respondent Board of School Trustees, School District No. 23 (Central Okanagan);
John Baigent, for the respondent Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 523;
Janet E. Minor and M. David Lepofsky, for the intervener Ontario Human Rights Commission;
Karnik Doukmetzian and Gerald Chipeur, for the intervener Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada;
Jeffrey Sack, Q.C., and Steven Barrett, for the intervener Canadian Labour Congress;
Anne M. Molloy and Janet L. Budgell, for the interveners Disabled People for Employment Equity and Persons United for Self Help in Ontario (P.U.S.H.) Ontario.
Solicitors of Record:
Gaynor, Smith and Scott, Associates, Langley, B.C., for the appellant;
Weddell, Horn & Company, Kelowna, B.C., for the respondent Board of School Trustees, School District No. 23 (Central Okanagan);
Baigent & Jackson, Enderby, B.C., for the respondent Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 523;
Ministry of the Attorney General, Victoria, B.C., for the respondent British Columbia Council of Human Rights;
Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener Ontario Human Rights Commission;
Karnik Doukmetzian and Milner Fenerty, Oshawa, Ontario, for the intervener Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada;
Sack Goldblatt Mitchell, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener Canadian Labour Congress;
Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped, Toronto, Ontario, for the interveners Disabled People for Employment Equity and Persons United for Self Help in Ontario (P.U.S.H.) Ontario.
This case was heard on March 24, 1992, at Ottawa, Ontario, before La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Stevenson, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On September 24, 1992, Sopinka, J., delivered the following judgment for the Court in both official languages (Stevenson, J., took no part in the judgment):
