Canada (House of Commons) v. Vaid
Encyclopedia
Canada v. Vaid, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 667, 2005 SCC 30 is the leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada
on parliamentary privilege
.
Satnam Vaid was a chauffeur employed by the Canadian House of Commons
until he was dismissed. Vaid filed a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission
for his dismissal. The House of Commons argued that its reason for firing him was protected under parliamentary privilege and so it could not be reviewed by any tribunal or court.
The Supreme Court held that parliamentary privilege was not so broad as to protect employment matters. Justice Binnie, writing for a unanimous Court held that:
Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts, and its decisions...
on parliamentary privilege
Parliamentary privilege
Parliamentary privilege is a legal immunity enjoyed by members of certain legislatures, in which legislators are granted protection against civil or criminal liability for actions done or statements made related to one's duties as a legislator. It is common in countries whose constitutions are...
.
Satnam Vaid was a chauffeur employed by the Canadian House of Commons
Canadian House of Commons
The House of Commons of Canada is a component of the Parliament of Canada, along with the Sovereign and the Senate. The House of Commons is a democratically elected body, consisting of 308 members known as Members of Parliament...
until he was dismissed. Vaid filed a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission
Canadian Human Rights Commission
The Canadian Human Rights Commission is a quasi-judicial body that was established in 1977 by the government of Canada. It is empowered under the Canadian Human Rights Act to investigate and try to settle complaints of discrimination in employment and in the provision of services within federal...
for his dismissal. The House of Commons argued that its reason for firing him was protected under parliamentary privilege and so it could not be reviewed by any tribunal or court.
The Supreme Court held that parliamentary privilege was not so broad as to protect employment matters. Justice Binnie, writing for a unanimous Court held 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.