Buffett v. Canadian Armed Forces

Buffett v. Canadian Armed Forces

The Tribunal refused to dismiss the complaint at the preliminary stage because the issues raised are significant and complex, the parties may expand the agreed facts at a full hearing, and dismissal should be reserved for the clearest of cases; therefore the matter must proceed to a full hearing where evidence and legal arguments can be fully presented.

Citation
2005 CHRT 16
Parties
Complainant: Terry Buffett; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Canadian Armed Forces
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Preliminary Motion to Dismiss Heard; Motion Dismissed; Proceeding to Full Hearing
Outcome
Preliminary motion dismissed; matter to proceed to a full hearing on the merits
Legal Topics
Discrimination, Employment Benefit, Prima Facie Case, Section 7 Canadian Human Rights Act, Section 10 Canadian Human Rights Act, Health Benefits, Spousal Benefits, Spectrum of Care Policy
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Employment Law Administrative Law Health Law Discrimination Employment Benefit Prima Facie Case Section 7 Canadian Human Rights Act +4 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Terry Buffett

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Canadian Armed Forces

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Preliminary Motion to Dismiss Heard; Motion Dismissed; Proceeding to Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether refusal to fund IVF/ICSI for the complainant's spouse constitutes denial of an employment benefit under section 7 of the Canadian Human Rights Act
  2. 2 Whether the complainant has established a prima facie case of discrimination
  3. 3 Whether the provision of insured health care benefits by the Respondent is an employment practice or policy within the meaning of section 10 of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal refused to dismiss the complaint at the preliminary stage because the issues raised are significant and complex, the parties may expand the agreed facts at a full hearing, and dismissal should be reserved for the clearest of cases; therefore the matter must proceed to a full hearing where evidence and legal arguments can be fully presented.

Court Disposition

Preliminary motion dismissed; matter to proceed to a full hearing on the merits

Orders

  • Parties to provide dates of availability for a one week hearing in May or June 2005
  • Parties to exchange and file a final list of witnesses with a resume of the evidence each witness will give at the hearing