CASE NO. VOL. NO. PAGE
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION - and - DONALD MARTIN
BOARD OF NOVA SCOTIA
(Appellant) (Respondent)
(Respondent by Cross-Appeal) (Appellant by Cross-Appeal)
- and - WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
APPEALS TRIBUNAL OF NOVA
SCOTIA
(Respondent)
(Respondent by Cross-Appeal)
AND:
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION RUTH A. LASEUR
BOARD OF NOVA SCOTIA
(Appellant) (Respondent)
(Respondent by Cross-Appeal) (Appellant by Cross-Appeal)
- and - WORKERS COMPENSATION
APPEALS TRIBUNAL OF NOVA
SCOTIA
(Respondent)
(Respondent by Cross-Appeal)
CA 1621161 Halifax, N.S. CROMWELL, J.A.
CA 162160 & 162130
Cite as: Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Martin, 2000 NSCA 126
APPEALS HEARD: June 13 and 14, 2000
JUDGMENT DELIVERED: November 8th, 2000
SUBJECT: Workers’ Compensation - Chronic Pain - Equality Rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Administrative Tribunals - Jurisdiction to apply the Charter
SUMMARY: Mr. Martin and Ms. Laseur are injured workers with chronic pain. Both were denied certain benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act, S.N.S. 1994 - 95, c. 10, as amended, by virtue of Regulations and provisions in the Act precluding benefits for disability resulting from chronic pain. In their appeals to WCAT from the denial of benefits, they challenged these provisions arguing that they contravene s. 15(1) of the Charter. WCAT decided that it had jurisdiction to entertain these arguments and, on the merits, found the provisions were unconstitutional because they violated s. 15. The Board appealed.
ISSUES: 1. Does WCAT have jurisdiction to refuse to apply provisions in its enabling statute which, in its opinion, violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
2. Do the challenged provisions violate s. 15 of the Charter?
RESULT: Appeals allowed and decisions of WCAT set aside.
WCAT does not have jurisdiction to refuse to apply provisions in its enabling statute which confer or limit benefits on the basis of its opinion that they violate the Charter. In any case, the challenged provisions do not limit the respondents’ rights under s. 15 of the Charter because a reasonable person in circumstances similar to that of the respondents and taking account of the various relevant considerations would not think that these provisions demean the respondents’ human dignity.
|
This information sheet does not form part of the court’s decision. Quotes must be from the judgment, not this cover sheet. The full court judgment consists of 118 pages. |