Walden et al. v. Canada (Social Development)

Walden et al. v. Canada (Social Development)

The Tribunal granted respondents leave to adduce evidence on their proposed remedy and on wage-loss issues, including testimony from named officials and a job evaluation expert; it held that wage-loss determinations must consider a comparison between medical adjudicators and medical advisors because the remedy must address the differential treatment identified in the December 2007 decision; quantum for pain and suffering is deferred but no additional evidence on suffering is required beyond employment lists.

Citation
2008 CHRT 21
Parties
Complainants: Ruth Walden et al.; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondents: Social Development Canada, Treasury Board of Canada and Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Proceeding / Remedy Phase Pre Hearing Evidentiary Ruling
Outcome
Motion granted in part: respondents permitted to adduce evidence on proposed remedy and on wage-loss/comparator issues, including testimony from Patricia Power, Charles Tardiff and a job evaluation expert; pain and suffering quantum deferred to remedy hearing; hearing scheduled for week of July 28 - August 1, 2008.
Legal Topics
Discrimination, Remedies, Compensation, Job Classification, Wage Loss, Pain and Suffering
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Employment Law Public Service Law Discrimination Remedies Compensation Job Classification +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ruth Walden et al.

Complainants

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Social Development Canada, Treasury Board of Canada and Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Proceeding / Remedy Phase Pre Hearing Evidentiary Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents may adduce evidence regarding their proposed remedy
  2. 2 Whether the appropriate comparator for calculating wage loss is the medical advisors or NU-CHN positions
  3. 3 Whether evidence from a job evaluation expert is admissible to determine relative value of work

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal granted respondents leave to adduce evidence on their proposed remedy and on wage-loss issues, including testimony from named officials and a job evaluation expert; it held that wage-loss determinations must consider a comparison between medical adjudicators and medical advisors because the remedy must address the differential treatment identified in the December 2007 decision; quantum for pain and suffering is deferred but no additional evidence on suffering is required beyond employment lists.

Court Disposition

Motion granted in part: respondents permitted to adduce evidence on proposed remedy and on wage-loss/comparator issues, including testimony from Patricia Power, Charles Tardiff and a job evaluation expert; pain and suffering quantum deferred to remedy hearing; hearing scheduled for week of July 28 - August 1, 2008.

Orders

  • Respondents granted permission to call evidence regarding their proposed remedy, including Patricia Power and Charles Tardiff
  • Respondents granted permission to call a job evaluation expert to address methods of valuing adjudicators' work and the appropriateness of comparators