Supreme Court

Decision Information

Hanvold Expediting BC Ltd. v Fast

Court Supreme Court
Date 1985-03-11
Other citations (1985) – 011 – 6 C.H.R.R. D/2507 (N.W.T. Min. of Justice & Pub. Services) – 6 C.H.R.R. D/2813 (N.W.T. S.C.) – 85 C.L.L.C. 17 – reversing (sub nom. Fast v. Hanvold Expediting British Columbia Ltd.) (1984)
File numbers SC 7405
Judge(s) Marshall
Location Yellowknife
Cases and statutes considered Cases considered:
POST OFFICE V. UNION OF POST OFFICE WORKERS (1974) 1 ALL E.R. 229 (H.L.);
GRIGGS V. DUKE POWER CO., 401 US 424 (1971);
PANESAR V. NESTLE CO. LTD. (1979) 129 NLJ 139 (C.A.);
MONK V. C.D.E. HOLDINGS LTD. ET AL., C.H.R.R. VOL. 4, DECISION 280;
ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION ET AL. V. BOROUGH OF ETOBICOKE (1982), 132 D.L.R. (3D) 14 (S.C.C.);
MANITOBA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION AND FINLAYSON V. WINNIPEG ET AL., (1982) 4 W.W.R. 715;
BUSHNELL COMMUNICATIONS LTD. ET AL., (1974) 1 O.R. (2d) 442 (H.C.);
CANADAIR LTD. V. THE KING, (1948) 1 D.L.R. 434, 5 C.R. 67

Statutes considered:
FAIR PRACTISES ORDINANCE, R.O.N.W.T. 1974, C. F-2, S. 3 (1), 7 (4), 13 (3).
Decision information:

Abstract: Appeal from an order for damages for discrimination on the basis of family contrary to the Fair Practises Act - The Respondent Fast was awarded $3,500.00 for compensation after being dismissed by the Applicant - Trial court found that Fast was dismissed because two of his family members had filed lien claims against the Applicant.
Decision: Appeal granted - Court found no discrimination on the basis family - The Applicant was legitimately exercising its right to require uncompromised loyalty from its employees - Discrimination contrary to the Ordinance should be distinguished from a bona fide occupational requirement.
Subjects: Civil liberties and human rights - Equality rights - Discrimination on basis of family status
Civil liberties and human rights - Equality rights - Justifiable discrimination - Reasonable occupational requirement or qualification

Decision Content

There is no document available for this decision.
 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.