Federal Court upholds Human Rights Tribunal – family status includes child care needs; employer to pay special compenstion – case argued by Andrew Raven and Andrew Astritis of RCBY T-1418-10

Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck LLP/s.r.l. is currently representing the Public Service Alliance of Canada (“PSAC”) and Cathy Murphy before the Federal Court in an application for judicial review of a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the human rights complaint filed by the PSAC and Ms Murphy that alleged that the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) discriminated against individuals who had received lump-sum pay equity payments in the year 2000 and were taxed on the full amount that same year. Consequently, most individuals who received lump-sum awards paid more taxes than individuals who received their wages in the years they were earned.

Provisions in the Income Tax Act allowed individuals to spread the lump-sum award over past years but triggered the CRA to charge compound interest on the amounts that would have been paid, thus reducing the actual value of the payment ordered. The effect of CRA’s actions was to undermine full pay equity for thousands of PSAC members.

The application was heard on January 11, 2011 at the Federal Court. David Yazbeck is counsel. Justice Michel Beaudry reserved judgment.

In the Ottawa Citizen: Feds, public service union battle over pay equity back taxes

The Federal Court of Appeal recently released its decision in Kane v. Attorney General of Canada, the first case before that Court involving a decision of the Public Service Staffing Tribunal. In its ruling, the Court of Appeal overturned the Tribunal’s decision, which had rejected Robert Kane’s argument that his employer had committed an abuse of authority in failing appoint him to his reclassified position.

In allowing Mr Kane’s appeal, the Federal Court of Appeal concluded that the Tribunal had acted unreasonably in finding that it was irrelevant whether the position in question was a new or reclassified position, given that this distinction served as the basis for the employer’s decision to proceed by way of an advertised appointment process.  Importantly, the Federal Court of Appeal also rejected the narrow test for abuse of authority proposed by the Attorney General of Canada, ruling that this test was at odds with the ordinary meaning of the provision and the purpose of the legislation.

Mr Kane, a member of the Public Service Alliance of Canada (“PSAC”) was represented by Andrew Raven and Andrew Astritis. The full text of the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision is available here.