Actuarial Notes

Brooks v. Canada Safeway Ltd.

By Dickson C.J. · Supreme Court of Canada · 1989 · [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1219

Study guide: Exam GH-201C

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, delivered by the Chief Justice on 4 May 1989, on whether a company accident and sickness plan that exempts pregnant women from benefits during a seventeen-week period discriminates because of sex, as prohibited by The Human Rights Act of Manitoba. The Court held that it does and allowed the appeals.

On the syllabus

  • Exam GH-201C — GH201-709-25: Brooks V. Canada Safeway Ltd., pp. 1219-1227 (up to section II); outcomes 3a.

I Facts

  • Susan Brooks, Patricia Allen and Patricia Dixon were part-time cashiers employed by Safeway who all became pregnant during 1982
  • Safeway’s group insurance plan paid weekly benefits for loss of pay due to accident or sickness: three consecutive months of work to qualify, a maximum of 26 weeks in any continuous period of disability, and two-thirds of weekly salary up to a ceiling of $189 per week
  • Pregnant employees were excluded from benefits during the “10-1-6” period, the ten weeks before the expected birth, the birth week and six weeks after, a seventeen-week period during which the exemption was absolute whatever the reason the employee could not work
  • Some coverage was available during part of that period under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, at a maximum of fifteen weekly payments, 60 per cent of eligible income and a longer qualifying period
  • All three claims under the Safeway plan were refused, and each appellant complained to the Manitoba Human Rights Commission of discrimination on the basis of sex and family status contrary to s. 6(1) of The Human Rights Act of Manitoba

II Legislation

  • Section 6(1) of The Human Rights Act of Manitoba, on discrimination prohibited in employment
  • Section 7(2), the exception for distinctions in an employee benefit plan
  • The 1987 Human Rights Code, which replaced the Act and whose s. 9 prohibits discrimination on grounds including sex, including pregnancy

III The Human Rights Tribunal

  • 1 The Complaint of Susan Brooks
  • 2 The Complaints of Patricia Allen and Patricia Dixon

IV The Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench

V The Court of Appeal of Manitoba

VI Issues and Interventions

  • Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the disability plan was not discriminatory
  • Whether it erred in adopting the conclusion that discrimination due to pregnancy is not discrimination because of sex
  • Whether it erred in adopting the conclusion that discrimination due to pregnancy is not discrimination on family status
  • The Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (L.E.A.F.) intervened in support of the appellants

VII Was the Disability Plan Discriminatory?

  • The Court concludes that the respondent’s accident and sickness plan discriminates on the basis of pregnancy

VIII Is Discrimination on the Basis of Pregnancy Sex Discrimination?

  • Discrimination on the basis of pregnancy is a form of sex discrimination because only women have the capacity to become pregnant
  • The respondent’s reliance on the Court’s decision in Bliss v. Attorney General of Canada is dealt with in this section

IX Discrimination on the Basis of Family Status

  • Having found pregnancy discrimination to violate the prohibition on sex discrimination, the Court finds it unnecessary to consider this issue

X Disposition

  • The plan discriminates on the basis of sex by excluding compensation for pregnant women during a seventeen-week period; the appeals are allowed and the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Manitoba set aside
  • The complaints are remitted to the adjudicator to determine the appropriate remedy under the Manitoba Human Rights Act

Sources