Walden v. Canada (Social Development )

Walden v. Canada (Social Development )

On the balance of probabilities the Tribunal found that the respondents' longstanding refusal since March 1978 to recognize and classify medical adjudicators as health professionals comparable to medical advisors, despite substantial overlap in core duties, constituted discriminatory practice under ss.7 and 10 of the CHRA; respondents rebutted parts of the prima facie case by identifying some supervisory/advisory differences but failed to reasonably explain the wide disparity in recognition, compensation and benefits, and failed to prove undue hardship or a valid BFOR; relief ordered to cease the practice and jurisdiction reserved to negotiate and, if necessary, adjudicate remedial...

Citation
2007 CHRT 56
Parties
Complainants: Ruth Walden et al.; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Social Development Canada; Respondent: Treasury Board of Canada; Respondent: Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint (employment Discrimination) / Decision Following Tribunal Hearing
Outcome
Complaints substantiated in part; respondents ordered to cease discriminatory practice; Tribunal retained jurisdiction to determine corrective measures and compensation (including reservation on wage losses and quantum for pain and suffering); no willful or reckless conduct found to justify s.53(3) award
Legal Topics
Sex Discrimination, Systemic Discrimination, Classification and Occupational Grouping, Employment Opportunities (s.10 Chra), Prima Facie Burden and Rebuttal, Remedies Under S.53 CHRA
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Employment Law Administrative Law Labour/public Service Classification Sex Discrimination Systemic Discrimination Classification and Occupational Grouping Employment Opportunities (s.10 Chra) +2 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ruth Walden et al.

Complainants

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Social Development Canada

Respondent

Treasury Board of Canada

Respondent

Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Act Complaint (employment Discrimination) / Decision Following Tribunal Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether differential treatment of medical adjudicators vs. medical advisors constitutes discrimination under s.7 CHRA
  2. 2 Whether respondent practice deprives adjudicators of employment opportunities under s.10 CHRA
  3. 3 Appropriate comparator group for establishing prima facie case

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the Tribunal found that the respondents' longstanding refusal since March 1978 to recognize and classify medical adjudicators as health professionals comparable to medical advisors, despite substantial overlap in core duties, constituted discriminatory practice under ss.7 and 10 of the CHRA; respondents rebutted parts of the prima facie case by identifying some supervisory/advisory differences but failed to reasonably explain the wide disparity in recognition, compensation and benefits, and failed to prove undue hardship or a valid BFOR; relief ordered to cease the practice and jurisdiction reserved to negotiate and, if necessary, adjudicate remedial...

Court Disposition

Complaints substantiated in part; respondents ordered to cease discriminatory practice; Tribunal retained jurisdiction to determine corrective measures and compensation (including reservation on wage losses and quantum for pain and suffering); no willful or reckless conduct found to justify s.53(3) award

Orders

  • Respondents are ordered to cease the discriminatory practice described in paragraph 143 of the decision
  • A case conference to report on negotiations will be scheduled three months from the decision and a deadline for final resolution will be set