Quasi-Constitutional Status of Human Rights Legislation in Canada

Quasi-Constitutional Status of Human Rights and the Supremacy of Charter Protections in Canada

Canadian human rights legislation and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms share a common foundation: both express the country’s fundamental commitment to equality and human dignity. While the Charter has constitutional force, human rights statutes are recognized by the courts as having quasi-constitutional status and hence, such laws prevail over ordinary legislation unless the legislature clearly and unequivocally intends otherwise. The result is a consistent pattern of courts striking down or reading down statutory provisions that offend basic equality rights.

1. The Quasi-Constitutional Nature of Human Rights Legislation

The Supreme Court of Canada has long recognized that human rights statutes occupy a special place in Canadian law. In Insurance Corp. of British Columbia v. Heerspink, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 145, Justice Lamer wrote that such statutes are “of a special nature and should be recognized as fundamental law.” Three years later, in Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Simpsons-Sears Ltd., [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536, McIntyre J. described human rights codes as “not quite constitutional but certainly of a special nature.”

The Supreme Court reaffirmed this principle in later cases such as Zurich Insurance Co. v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 321, and Robichaud v. Canada (Treasury Board), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 84. The interpretive rule emerging from these authorities is clear: human rights legislation must be given a broad and purposive interpretation and cannot be overridden by ordinary laws unless the legislature expresses a contrary intention in explicit terms.

2. Application in Blaney v. New Brunswick

The principle was applied directly in Blaney v. New Brunswick, 2023 NBCA 61. Margaret-Ann Blaney, a former MLA, was dismissed from her position as CEO of Efficiency NB after a change in government which resulted in this legislation to eliminate the Agency and her position of employment, then in the currency of a five year contract. She alleged discrimination on the basis of political belief, contrary to the New Brunswick Human Rights Act.

The Province argued that its Energy Efficiency and Conservation Agency Dissolution Act barred any proceedings relating to her dismissal.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal rejected that argument, holding that the Human Rights Act’s quasi-constitutional status required clear and unequivocal legislative language to remove its protections. The general immunity clause in the Dissolution Act was insufficient to oust the Human Rights Commission’s jurisdiction. As Chief Justice Marc Richard noted, fundamental human rights cannot be displaced by implication. The decision confirmed that quasi-constitutional principles remain robust even when the respondent is the Crown itself.

In July 2025, the New Brunswick Labour and Employment Board awarded Ms. Blaney more than $700,000 in damages for discrimination based on political activity. This sum included an award for lost wages and a damage award of $230,000 which dramatically exceeded the prior high water mark in New Brunswick of $15,000. This result that underscores how quasi-constitutional protections translate into concrete remedies.

3. Statutes Contrary to Charter Protections

Canadian courts have also struck down provisions of provincial legislation that contravene the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly under Section 15 (equality rights). These cases highlight how both the Charter and human rights statutes serve a parallel constitutional function — ensuring that vulnerable groups are not disadvantaged by statutory classifications.

(a) Workers’ Compensation and Disability Entitlements

Provincial workers’ compensation statutes that distinguish between mental and physical disabilities have been found to violate Section 15 of the Charter. In Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Martin, 2003 SCC 54, the Supreme Court held that Nova Scotia’s exclusion of chronic pain claims was unconstitutional. The Court found that denying benefits for chronic pain while compensating physical injuries discriminated on the basis of disability.

Similarly, in British Columbia, the Court of Appeal in Plesner v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, 2009 BCCA 188, struck down provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act that limited compensation for mental stress to “an acute reaction to a sudden and unexpected traumatic event.” The BC legislature responded with the Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2011, effective July 1, 2012, extending coverage to mental disorders arising from traumatic events, bullying, or harassment at work.

In Ontario, similar restrictions were challenged successfully before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (Decision No. 2157/09). The Tribunal declared unconstitutional the provision that limited mental-stress claims to sudden traumatic incidents, finding it contrary to Section 15 of the Charter. The result was an expansion of benefits for work-related psychological injuries and a parallel recognition that workplace harassment and bullying can cause compensable mental harm.

(b) Disability and Addiction under the Ontario Disability Support Program

The Ontario Disability Support Program Act, enacted in 1998, excluded individuals addicted to alcohol or drugs from receiving disability benefits unless they suffered from another recognized physical or mental impairment. This exclusion was found to violate Section 15 in Ontario (Disability Support Program) v. Tranchemontagne, 2010 ONCA 593. The Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that addiction constitutes a form of disability and that the statutory denial of benefits amounted to discrimination.

(c) Severance Pay and the “Frustration” Defence

Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, 2000 originally denied statutory severance pay where an employment contract was “frustrated” by the employee’s disability. In Ontario Nurses’ Association v. Mount Sinai Hospital, 2005 CanLII 17383 (ONCA), the Court of Appeal found that this provision violated Section 15 of the Charter and could not stand. The Court noted that the purpose of severance pay is to recognize past service, not to compensate for future loss, and that excluding disabled employees from such recognition was discriminatory. The result is that employers in Ontario cannot rely on the frustration defence to avoid paying statutory severance pay.

4. Common Theme: Fundamental Rights Prevail

Whether under the Charter or under human rights statutes, the message from the courts is consistent: fundamental rights cannot be limited by ordinary statutory language or administrative convenience. The judiciary has treated equality and dignity as the touchstones of modern labour and employment law.

  • Human rights codes prevail over conflicting legislation unless the legislature explicitly states otherwise (Heerspink, Blaney).
  • Charter equality rights strike down statutory distinctions based on disability or similar grounds (Martin, Plesner, Tranchemontagne).
  • Employment statutes must align with equality principles — as in Mount Sinai Hospital, where the Court refused to let “frustration” nullify severance pay.

Together, these lines of authority demonstrate that quasi-constitutional and constitutional norms work in tandem to safeguard employees and ensure that human rights remain paramount within Canada’s legislative framework.

5. Key Takeaways

  • Human rights legislation in Canada has quasi-constitutional force and prevails over inconsistent statutes unless explicitly overridden.
  • The Charter continues to strike down discriminatory provisions in provincial labour, employment, and compensation laws.
  • The Blaney decision confirms that even governments cannot insulate themselves from human rights scrutiny through broad legislative immunity clauses.
  • Courts will interpret both human rights and Charter protections purposively, ensuring that remedial objectives are fulfilled and substantive equality is achieved.

Related Reading:

👤 About the Author • 📚 Human Rights Index • 🎥 YouTube • ⬆️ Back to Top