Date: 19971218
Docket: A-730-96
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Thursday, this 18th day of December, 1997.
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE STONE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE McDONALD
BETWEEN:
VINCENT WONG, REG MORETTO, WILLIAM BALCOMBE,
HARVEY HETHERINGTON, ROGER BIDDLE,
DUANE CORRIGALL and WILLIAM HEITMAR
Appellants
(Respondents)
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
(Applicant)
JUDGMENT
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Julius A. Isaac
C.J.
Date: 19971218
Docket: A-730-96
CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE
STONE J.A.
McDONALD J.A.
BETWEEN:
VINCENT WONG, REG MORETTO, WILLIAM BALCOMBE,
HARVEY HETHERINGTON, ROGER BIDDLE,
DUANE CORRIGALL and WILLIAM HEITMAR
Appellants
(Respondents)
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
(Applicant)
Heard at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, on Thursday, December 18, 1997.
Judgment delivered from the Bench in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan on December 18, 1997.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: THE CHIEF JUSTICE
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
Date: 19971218
Docket: A-730-96
BETWEEN:
VINCENT WONG, REG MORETTO, WILLIAM BALCOMBE, HARVEY HETHERINGTON, ROGER BIDDLE, DUANE CORRIGALL and WILLIAM HEITMAR
Appellants
(Respondents)
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
(Applicant)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO.: A-730-96
| STYLE OF CAUSE: VINCENT WONG, REG MORETTO, WILLIAM BALCOMBE, HARVEY HETHERINGTON, ROGER BIDDLE, DUANE CORRIGALL and WILLIAM HEITMAR |
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
PLACE OF HEARING: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
DATE OF HEARING: December 18, 1997
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT THE CHIEF JUSTICE
OF THE COURT: STONE J.A.
McDONALD J.A.
DELIVERED BY: THE CHIEF JUSTICE
DATED: December 18, 1997
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Gary L. Bainbridge for the Appellants
Ms. Myra J. Yusak
Dept. of Justice
229 - 4th Avenue South
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
S7K 4K3 for the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Woloshyn Mattison
Barristers and Solicitors
200 Scotiabank Building
111 - 2nd Avenue South
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan for the Appellants
S7K 1K6
Mr. George Thomson, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for the Respondent
Date: 19971218
Docket: A-730-96
CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE
STONE J.A.
McDONALD J.A.
BETWEEN:
VINCENT WONG, REG MORETTO, WILLIAM BALCOMBE,
HARVEY HETHERINGTON, ROGER BIDDLE,
DUANE CORRIGALL and WILLIAM HEITMAR
Appellants
(Respondents)
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
(Applicant)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered from the Bench in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan)
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
[1] This is an appeal from a final judgment of a motions Judge of the Trial Division, pronounced on 18 September, 1996, on an interlocutory motion brought by the respondent for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 432.1 of the Federal Court Rules.
[2] Before the motions judge, the appellants case was, in essence, that a pay differential in their collective agreement with the Department of Transport of Canada, based on their province of residence, (Saskatchewan) was offensive to Subsection 15(1) of the Charter. The contention was that the collective agreement had made a distinction between the appellants and similar occupational groups in other provinces that was disadvantageous to them based solely on their province of residence.
[3] After he had reviewed the leading subsection 15(1) jurisprudence on this issue, the learned motions judge concluded that while the possibility remains open to include an individual's province of residence as an analogous ground that may give rise to a finding of discrimination, that was not the case here. Furthermore, he concluded that the appellants' claim was purely economic and therefore not protected by subsection 15(1) of the Charter. Based on those conclusions, the learned motions judge decided that the appellants' claim did not disclose a genuine issue for trial as provided by Rule 432.1 and the jurisprudence of this Court. He therefore granted the respondent's motion for summary judgment.
[4] That decision which the appellants' now seek to attack was in some respects discretionary. It has been well settled that an attack on such a decision could succeed only where it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of a reviewing Court that the motions judge erred in law or in principle or in his appreciation of the evidence and that such error affected his decision (See Algonquin Mercantile Corp. v. Dart Industries Ltd. et al., (1984) 3 C.P.R. (3d) 143 (C.A.).
[5] Before us, counsel for the appellants referred us to the decision of Supreme Court of Canada in City of Longueuil v. Godbout et al (File 24990, released 31 October 1997) and to the decision of this Court in Corbiere et al v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs et al (1996), 206 N.R. 85 (F.C.A.), (leave to S.C.C. granted, 24 April, 1997, S.C.C. No. 25708), both decided subsequent to the decision under attack in this appeal. His submission was that the decision in those cases reinforced his submission that province of residence was an analogous ground of discrimination within the purview of subsection 15(1) of the Charter. We Disagree.
[6] We are all of the view that the appellants have not demonstrated to us to the requisite degree that the learned motions judge made any error in law or in principle or in his appreciation of the evidence in reaching his conclusion. We are therefore of the view that the appeal should be dismissed with costs.
"Julius A. Isaac"
C. J.
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
December 18, 1997
Email this Content