[ql06] PUBLIC
- From: Sheldon Erentzen <sheldon.erentzen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: ql06@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 16:39:12 -0400
This follwoing article is about the case that Stan Corbett has referred
to as having changed current jurisdiction lines over interpretation of
the charter.
The most important part of this judgement is the statement that
tribunals may now play a role in interpreting the Charter, which seems
to give Provincial Administrative Tribunals a place within the courts.
It seems to blur the division line set up by the John East Iron Works case.
Sheldon
I'm also including the judgement as released by the court at the end of
the article
[snip]
Supreme Court kills ban on chronic-pain payments
Ottawa -- The Supreme Court of Canada has struck down Nova Scotia
legislation that barred compensation payments to workers suffering from
chronic pain syndrome -- people often painted as malingerers who refused
to return to work.
In a 9-0 decision Friday, the court ruled that the blanket ban on
payments violated constitutionally guaranteed equality rights and that
claims must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
The court also ruled that provincial workers compensation tribunals have
the legal power to interpret the Charter of Rights -- a potentially
sweeping conclusion that could have ramifications far beyond the cases
at hand.
There are hundreds of provincial and federal administrative bodies that
adjudicate everything from rent increases to sexual harassment
complaints, equal-pay disputes and immigration and refugee claims.
All could see their powers broadened by the decision.
At issue Friday were the cases of Ruth Laseur, a former school bus
driver, and Donald Martin, a former car dealership employee, who
suffered back injuries on the job.
They received temporary workers-compensation benefits for the immediate
injuries. But they were denied longer-term payments when they continued
to suffer chronic pain months later and couldn't go back to work.
Chronic pain syndrome is medically described as pain that persists for
an unusually long time, or is disproportionate to the initial injury, or
can't be supported by a more specific medical diagnosis.
Justice Charles Gonthier, writing for the court, noted that people
subject to the syndrome have often been characterized as malingerers.
He concluded, however, that their suffering is real and their cases
cannot be barred from consideration under workers compensation law.
[snip]
(28372, 28370 Donald Martin v. Workers' Compensation Board of Nova
Scotia and Attorney General of Nova Scotia - and - Nova Scotia Workers'
Compensation Appeals Tribunal, Ontario Network of Injured Workers
Groups, Canadian Labour Congress, Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney
General of British Columbia and Workers' Compensation Board of Alberta -
and between - Ruth A. Laseur v. Workers' Compensation Board of Nova
Scotia and Attorney General of Nova Scotia - and - Nova Scotia Workers'
Compensation Appeals Tribunal, Ontario Network of Injured Workers
Groups, Canadian Labour Congress, Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney
General of British Columbia and Workers' Compensation Board of Alberta
(N.S.)
2003 SCC 54 / 2003 CSC 54
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache,
Binnie, Arbour, LeBel
and Deschamps JJ.
The appeals from the judgments of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal,
Numbers CA162160, CA162130 and CA162161, dated November 8, 2000, heard
on December 9, 2002, are allowed. Section 10B of the Workers'
Compensation Act and the Functional Restoration (Multi-Faceted Pain
Services) Program Regulations infringe s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms, and the infringement is not justified under s.
1. The challenged provisions are therefore of no force or effect by
operation of s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. The general
declaration of invalidity is postponed for six months from the date of
this judgment. In the Martin case, the judgment rendered by the Workers'
Compensation Appeals Tribunal on January 31, 2000, is reinstated. The
Laseur case is returned to the Workers' Compensation Board for
reconsideration on the basis of the subsisting provisions of the Act and
the applicable regulations and policies.
The constitutional questions are answered as follows:
1. Do s. 10B of the Workers' Compensation Act, S.N.S. 1994-95, c. 10, as
amended, and the Functional Restoration (Multi-Faceted Pain Services)
Program Regulations, N.S. Reg. 57/96, infringe the equality rights
guaranteed by s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Yes.
2. If the answer to question # 1 is yes, does such infringement
constitute a reasonable limit prescribed by law and demonstrably
justified in a free and democratic society pursuant to s. 1 of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
No.)
Other related posts:
