Digests

Human Rights

Judicial review of Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision finding Government’s refusal to recognize professional nature of work by medical adjudicators in manner proportionate to recognition accorded to medical advisors discriminatory within meaning of Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6 (Act), ss. 7, 10—Medical adjudicators, advisors both assessing Canada Pension Plan disability claims—Both positions requiring medical knowledge—However, positions classified differently—Whether Tribunal erring in finding that prima facie case established under Act, ss. 7, 10; that Act, ss. 7, 10, 53 demanding employer offer proportionate pay for proportionate work—Clear Tribunal not relying solely on statistical evidence of professional occupational segregation—Thus not erring in concluding that evidence adduced sufficient in establishing prima facie case—Tribunal’s finding that essential nature, character of work performed by both groups same not inconsistent with differences in responsibilities, duties reasonable—Those differences not extensive enough to explain disparity in treatment between medical adjudicators, advisors—Government not providing reasonable, non-discriminatory explanation for different application of classification between both groups—Tribunal not purporting to impose obligation on employers to pay proportionate compensation for proportionate work—Rather, Tribunal concerned with Government failure to recognize professional nature of work by medical adjudicators in way that work of medical advisors recognized—Decision reasonable, falling within range of acceptable outcomes—Application dismissed.

Canada (Attorney General) v. Walden (T-55-08, 2010 FC 490, Mactavish J., judgment dated May 4, 2010, 62 pp.)