Buffett v. Canadian Forces

Buffett v. Canadian Forces

The Tribunal found that the CF's refusal to fund IVF with ICSI for a male member with male-factor infertility constituted adverse differential treatment on the grounds of sex and disability; the CF failed to establish that extending equivalent assisted-conception benefits (IVF with ICSI up to three cycles, where medically recommended) would cause undue hardship, and therefore must provide substantively equal employment benefits and remedial relief.

Citation
2006 CHRT 39
Parties
Complainant: Terry Buffett; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Canadian Forces
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint / Decision on Merits (tribunal Reasons Dated 2006 09 15)
Outcome
Complaint substantiated in part: discrimination found on basis of sex and disability; family status allegation not substantiated.
Legal Topics
Discrimination, Sex Discrimination, Disability Discrimination, Employment Benefits, IVF Funding Policy, Bona Fide Occupational Requirement, Undue Hardship, Remedies
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Law Health Law Administrative Law Military Law Discrimination Sex Discrimination Disability Discrimination +5 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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Terry Buffett

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Canadian Forces

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint / Decision on Merits (tribunal Reasons Dated 2006 09 15)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether denial of CF funding for IVF/ICSI to a male member constituted discrimination on the basis of sex (s.7)
  2. 2 Whether denial constituted discrimination on the basis of disability (male factor infertility)
  3. 3 Whether CF policy was a bona fide occupational requirement and whether accommodation would cause undue hardship

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the CF's refusal to fund IVF with ICSI for a male member with male-factor infertility constituted adverse differential treatment on the grounds of sex and disability; the CF failed to establish that extending equivalent assisted-conception benefits (IVF with ICSI up to three cycles, where medically recommended) would cause undue hardship, and therefore must provide substantively equal employment benefits and remedial relief.

Court Disposition

Complaint substantiated in part: discrimination found on basis of sex and disability; family status allegation not substantiated.

Orders

  • Respondent to fund IVF with ICSI for Mr. Buffett and his spouse, to a maximum of three cycles, conditional on continued recommendation by their reproductive technology specialist
  • Respondent to pay complainant $7500 in compensation for pain and suffering