B. v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission)

B. v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission)

The Code's grounds for 'marital status' and 'family status' are broad enough to include adverse distinctions based on the particular identity of a complainant's spouse or family member; a complainant need not demonstrate membership in an identifiable sub-group—what matters is whether the individual was arbitrarily disadvantaged on an enumerated ground. Applying that test to the Board's findings, the dismissal constituted discrimination.

Citation
2002 SCC 66
Parties
Appellant: Mr. B; Appellant: Mr. C; Appellant: D Ltd.; Respondent: Mr. A; Respondent: Ontario Human Rights Commission
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Appeal (employment Discrimination) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Marital Status, Family Status, Discrimination, Statutory Interpretation, Remedies
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Employment Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Marital Status Family Status Discrimination Statutory Interpretation +1 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr. B

Appellant

Mr. C

Appellant

D Ltd.

Appellant

Mr. A

Respondent

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Appeal (employment Discrimination) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether 'marital status' and 'family status' under the Ontario Human Rights Code encompass adverse treatment based on the particular identity of a spouse or family member
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal of the employee constituted discrimination under the Code

Ratio Decidendi

The Code's grounds for 'marital status' and 'family status' are broad enough to include adverse distinctions based on the particular identity of a complainant's spouse or family member; a complainant need not demonstrate membership in an identifiable sub-group—what matters is whether the individual was arbitrarily disadvantaged on an enumerated ground. Applying that test to the Board's findings, the dismissal constituted discrimination.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs