Canada Post Corporation v. Public Service Alliance of Canada

Canada Post Corporation v. Public Service Alliance of Canada

Court set aside the Tribunal decision and allowed Canada Post's judicial review: Tribunal unreasonably applied the 1986 Guidelines only insofar as they were treated as non-prejudicial codification of pre-existing practice (but that did not salvage other errors); Tribunal erred by adopting a novel, lower standard of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2008 FC 223
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Canada Post Corporation; Respondent/applicant: Public Service Alliance of Canada; Respondent: Canadian Human Rights Commission
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Decision / Final Judgment and Reasons
Outcome
Canada Post application allowed; PSAC application dismissed; Tribunal decision set aside and complaint ordered dismissed as not substantiated
Legal Topics
Retroactivity of Guidelines, Standard of Proof, Comparator Selection, Rebuttable Presumption, Quantification of Damages, Judicial Review
Source Language
english
Human Rights Employment Law Administrative Law Labour Law Pay Equity Retroactivity of Guidelines Standard of Proof Comparator Selection +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canada Post Corporation

Applicant/respondent

Public Service Alliance of Canada

Respondent/applicant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Decision / Final Judgment and Reasons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether 1986 Equal Wages Guidelines could be applied to a 1983 complaint (retroactivity)
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal applied an improper or novel standard of proof for liability
  3. 3 Whether the Postal Operations (PO) Group was an appropriate comparator group

Ratio Decidendi

Court set aside the Tribunal decision and allowed Canada Post's judicial review: Tribunal unreasonably applied the 1986 Guidelines only insofar as they were treated as non-prejudicial codification of pre-existing practice (but that did not salvage other errors); Tribunal erred by adopting a novel, lower standard of proof ('sub-bands of reasonable reliability') instead of the civil balance of probabilities and by unreasonably accepting the PO Group comparator that masked a large cohort of female PO-4 employees; because liability was not proven on the proper standard the Tribunal's damages discount was unsupportable; the complaint is to be dismissed as not substantiated and Tribunal...

Court Disposition

Canada Post application allowed; PSAC application dismissed; Tribunal decision set aside and complaint ordered dismissed as not substantiated

Orders

  • The application for judicial review by Canada Post (T-1750-05) is allowed and the Tribunal decision dated October 7, 2005 is set aside; the complaint is referred back to the Tribunal with the direction that the complaint be dismissed as not substantiated according to the legal standard of proof.
  • The application for judicial review by PSAC (T-1989-05) is dismissed.