Majority
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
THE CHIEF JUSTICE -- It will not be necessary to call upon other counsel. We have decided the disposition of this appeal. We are unanimous, and Justice La Forest will deliver the judgment.
//La Forest J.//
LA FOREST J.
LA FOREST J. -- We are all of the view that The Workers' Compensation Act, 1983, S.N. 1983, c. 48, which provides that the right to compensation provided by that Act is in lieu of all rights and actions to which a worker or dependents might otherwise be entitled, does not, in these circumstances, constitute discrimination within the meaning of s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as elaborated by this Court in Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143, subsequent to the filing of a notice of appeal as of right. The situation of the workers and dependents here is in no way analogous to those listed in s. 15(1), as a majority in Andrews stated was required to permit recourse to s. 15(1). The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
The answers to the constitutional questions are as follows:
Question 1:Does s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the "Charter ") apply to causes of action arising prior to April 17, 1985?
Answer:No.
Question 2:Are ss. 32 and 34 of The Workers' Compensation Act, 1983, S.N. 1983, c. 48, (the "Act") inconsistent with s. 15(1) of the Charter ?
Answer:No.
Question 3:If ss. 32 and 34 of the Act are inconsistent with s. 15(1) of the Charter , are ss. 32 and 34 of the Act saved by s. 15(2) of the Charter ?
Answer:It is not necessary to answer this question.
Question 4:If ss. 32 and 34 of the Act are inconsistent with s. 15(1) of the Charter and are not saved by s. 15(2) of the Charter , to what extent, if any, can such limits on the rights protected by s. 15(1) of the Charter be justified under s. 1 of the Charter and thereby rendered not inconsistent with The Constitution Act, 1982 ?
Answer:It is not necessary to answer this question.
There will be no order as to costs.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitor for the appellant: Malcolm McKillop, Toronto.
Solicitor for the respondent: Leslie Thoms, St. John's.
Solicitors for the intervener the Workers' Compensation Commission of Newfoundland: Williams, Harris, Roebothan & McKay, St. John's.
Solicitors for the intervener General Bakeries Ltd: White, Ottenheimer & Green, St. John's.
Solicitors for the intervener the Canadian Manufacturers' Association: Chalker, Green & Rowe, St. John's.
Solicitors for the intervener the Canadian Labour Congress: Sack, Goldblatt & Mitchell, Toronto.
Solicitors for the interveners the Canadian National Railway Company and Marine Atlantic Inc.: Lewis, Sinnott & Heneghan, St. John's.
Solicitors for the intervener the Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail du Québec: LaFontaine, Chayer, Cliche & Associés, Québec.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada: John C. Tait, Ottawa.
Solicitors for the interveners the Attorneys General for Ontario and Manitoba: The Attorneys General for Ontario and Manitoba.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of British Columbia: The Ministry of the Attorney General of British Columbia, Victoria.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General for Nova Scotia: The Department of the Attorney General, Halifax.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Québec: The Attorney General of Quebec, Ste‑Foy.
Solicitors for the interveners the Attorneys General for Alberta, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan: The Attorneys General for Alberta, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan.
Cases cited
- Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia 19955, 19956-1989-02-02