Canada (House of Commons) v. Vaid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canada (House of Commons) 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 government argued that their 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.