Ursel v. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat and Association of Justice Counsel

Ursel v. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat and Association of Justice Counsel

Given the respondents' concessions of a prima facie case for the relevant sections of the Act, the limited factual scope of the complaint, and the parties' agreement to amend the impugned language, the Tribunal declares that article 21.06 of the AJC-TB collective agreement was discriminatory in the facts of this case.

Citation
2017 CHRT 3
Parties
Complainant: Barbara Ursel; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent (employer): Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat; Respondent (bargaining Agent): Association of Justice Counsel
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Consent Order / Settlement
Outcome
Consent order declaring article 21.06 discriminatory in the facts of this case
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Severance Pay, Leave Without Pay, Continuous Employment, Collective Agreement, Prima Facie, Consent Order
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Law Labour Relations Disability Law Disability Discrimination Severance Pay Leave Without Pay Continuous Employment +3 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barbara Ursel

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat

Respondent (employer)

Association of Justice Counsel

Respondent (bargaining Agent)

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint Under the Canadian Human Rights Act / Consent Order / Settlement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer and bargaining agent discriminated on the basis of disability by not counting a one-year leave without pay for medical reasons as continuous employment for severance pay
  2. 2 Whether article 21.06 of the AJC-TB collective agreement is discriminatory in the facts of this case
  3. 3 Application of sections 7, 9 and 10 of the Canadian Human Rights Act in the context of collective agreement language

Ratio Decidendi

Given the respondents' concessions of a prima facie case for the relevant sections of the Act, the limited factual scope of the complaint, and the parties' agreement to amend the impugned language, the Tribunal declares that article 21.06 of the AJC-TB collective agreement was discriminatory in the facts of this case.

Court Disposition

Consent order declaring article 21.06 discriminatory in the facts of this case

Orders

  • Article 21.06 of the AJC-TB collective agreement is declared discriminatory in the facts of this case
  • Parties have reached a confidential settlement of the complaints