Case information

Administrative law — Judicial review — Abuse of process — Does the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provide protection against the simultaneous withdrawal of employer-sponsored healthcare benefits from transgender employees who are already without income? — Did the courts below err in refusing to consider subject matter expert testimony on the medical vulnerabilities specific to transgender individuals? — If so, did this error constitute a failure to uphold the s. 15 Charter right to equality before the law?

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.

The applicant is a trans woman. She was employed by the Canadian National Railway Company (“CN”) and was a member of the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference (“TCRC”). During the course of her employment, the applicant raised safety concerns regarding railway operations. She also alleged having experienced harassment from certain colleagues. A workplace investigation into the allegations was launched, and the applicant was put on paid leave pending the result of the investigation. At the conclusion of the investigation, it was established that there was no evidence of harassment. The applicant was asked to return to work, but she refused. Consequently, her employment status was modified to unauthorized leave of absence and her pay and benefits, including medical coverage, were stopped. She then asked TCRC to file a grievance challenging the workplace investigation and demanding that her medical coverage be reinstated, but TCRC refused. Eventually, the applicant’s employment was administratively terminated. The applicant filed two complaints at the Canada Industrial Relations Board (“CIRB”). In one complaint, she alleged that TCRC had breached the duty of fair representation it owed her when it refused to file the grievance. In the other complaint, she alleged that CN retaliated against her for having raised rail safety concerns. The CIRB dismissed the first complaint on the basis that it was untimely, and dismissed the second complaint on the basis that CN’s actions were not prohibited by s. 147 of the Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L 2. The applicant applied for judicial review of both the CIRB’s decisions, but both applications were dismissed by the Federal Court of Appeal due to the applicant’s abuse of the court process.