Court of Appeal

Decision Information

Decision Content

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Citation:  Muggah v. Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal), 2015 NSCA 63

Date:  20150623

Docket:  CA 432292

Registry:  Halifax

Between:

Deborah Lee Muggah

Appellant

v.

Nova Scotia Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal,

the Workers’ Compensation Board of Nova Scotia, the Attorney General

for the Province of Nova Scotia and Marid Industries Limited

Respondents

 

Judge:

The Honourable Justice Joel E. Fichaud

Appeal Heard:

June 9, 2015, in Halifax, Nova Scotia

Subject:

Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 15(1) – workers’ compensation

Summary:

Ms. Muggah was divorced and in receipt of spousal support under her Corollary Relief Judgment.  Then her former spouse died from a workplace accident.  Ms. Muggah claimed a survivor’s benefit under s. 60 of the Workers’ Compensation Act, S.N.S. 1994-95, c. 10.  The Workers’ Compensation Board’s hearing officer, and then the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, denied her claim.  The reason was that the Act provided a survivor’s benefit only to persons who, at the time of the worker’s death, were either married or in a common law relationship with the worker.  Ms. Muggah claimed that the Act discriminated against former spouses, that this was distinction based on “marital status”, an analogous ground under s. 15(1) of the Charter of Rights, and that the provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act offended the Charter.  The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal held that there was no infringement of s. 15(1).  Ms. Muggah appealed.

Issues:

Do the provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act governing a survivor’s benefit offend s. 15(1) of the Charter by discriminating on the basis of marital status?

Result:

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.  The provisions of the Act did not draw a distinction based on the analogous ground of marital status, as that ground has been defined in the authorities.  Neither did the provisions discriminate, or offend the principles of substantive equality, by exacerbating or perpetuating a disadvantage to former spouses, or to Ms. Muggah because she was a former spouse.

This information sheet does not form part of the court’s judgment. Quotes must be from the judgment, not this cover sheet. The full court judgment consists of 21 pages.

 

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.