Reasons of The Court
A unanimous decision of the Court was written by Binnie J.
The Court found that the first step of determining whether parliamentary privilege exists at the federal level in a particular area is to ascertain whether the existence and scope of the claimed privilege have been authoritatively established in relation the Parliament of Canada or to the House of Commons at Westminster.
If the existence and scope of the claimed privilege has not been authoritatively established, then it must be tested against the doctrine of necessity. That is, the assembly or member seeking its immunity must show that the sphere of activity for which privilege is claimed is so closely and directly connected with the fulfillment by the assembly or its members of their functions as a legislative and deliberative body, including the assembly’s work in holding the government to account, that outside interference would undermine the level of autonomy required to enable the assembly and its members to do their work with dignity and efficiency.
The Court went on to find that parliamentary privilege was not so broad as to protect employment matters. Justice Binnie wrote that:
- I have no doubt that privilege attaches to the House's relations with some of its employees, but the appellants have insisted on the broadest possible coverage without leading any evidence to justify such a sweeping immunity, or a lesser immunity, or indeed any evidence of necessity at all. ... The appellants having failed to establish the privilege in the broad and all-inclusive terms asserted, the respondents are entitled to have the appeal disposed of according to the ordinary employment and human rights law that Parliament has enacted with respect to employees within federal legislative jurisdiction.
However, unrelated to the parliamentary privilege issue, the Court found that the Canadian Human Rights Act did not apply to Parliamentary employees, as their labour issues were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act. Therefore, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal did not have jurisdiction on the matter, and the appeal was allowed.
Read more about this topic: Canada (House Of Commons) V. Vaid
Famous quotes containing the words reasons of, reasons and/or court:
“The needs of a human being are sacred. Their satisfaction cannot be subordinated either to reasons of state, or to any consideration of money, nationality, race, or color, or to the moral or other value attributed to the human being in question, or to any consideration whatsoever.”
—Simone Weil (1909–1943)
“One of the reasons for the failure of feminism to dislodge deeply held perceptions of male and female behaviour was its insistence that women were victims, and men powerful patriarchs, which made a travesty of ordinary people’s experience of the mutual interdependence of men and women.”
—Rosalind Coward (b. 1953)
“When a man’s feeling and character are injured, he ought to seek a speedy redress.... My character you have injured, and further you have insulted me in the presence of a court and large audience. I therefore call upon you as a gentleman to give me satisfaction for the same.”
—Andrew Jackson (1767–1845)