Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

According to the facts set out in the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Respondent Vaid, worked as a chauffeur to three successive Speakers of the House of Commons between 1984 and 1994. On January 11, 1995, he was terminated, allegedly because he refused to assume new duties under a changed job description and refused alternative employment. He grieved the termination pursuant to the Parliamentary Employees Staff Relations Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 33 (2nd Supp.) (PESRA). The matter was referred to adjudication under PESRA. The adjudicator heard the grievance and, in a decision dated July 25, 1995, found in favour of Respondent Vaid and ordered that he be reinstated to his position as chauffeur.

Respondent Vaid returned to work August 17, 1995, at which time he was told that the chauffeur’s position had been designated “bilingual imperative”. Lacking the necessary French language skills to resume his former post, Respondent Vaid was not allowed to resume driving duties and instead, was sent for French language training.

In a letter dated April 8, 1997, Respondent Vaid advised Appellant Parent that he wished to resume his former duties. By letter dated May 12, 1997, from the Speaker’s office, Respondent Vaid was advised that the Speaker’s office had been reorganized and that his substantive position would become surplus effective May 29, 1997.

Respondent Vaid filed two complaints with the Respondent Commission, both dated July 10, 1997, alleging that the Appellant House of Commons discriminated against him on the basis of his race, colour and ethnic or national origin by refusing to continue to employ him. On October 2, 2000, the complaints were referred to a panel of the Tribunal. In a preliminary objection before the Tribunal, the Appellants asserted that the Tribunal was without jurisdiction to consider Respondent Vaid’s complaints on the grounds that the Appellants are not subject to the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6 (CHRA) because of parliamentary privilege.

On April 17, 2001, the panel, by a 2-1 majority, dismissed the parliamentary privilege objection. The Appellants then sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Trial Division of the Federal Court. On December 4, 2001, the Trial Division dismissed the application for judicial review, affirming that application of the CHRA to the Appellants was not barred by parliamentary privilege and that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear and decide Respondent Vaid’s complaints. An appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal was dismissed.