Nova Scotia (Workers' Compensation Board) v. Martin; Nova Scotia (Workers' Compensation Board) v. Laseur

Nova Scotia (Workers' Compensation Board) v. Martin; Nova Scotia (Workers' Compensation Board) v. Laseur
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
2003-10-03
Neutral citation
2003 SCC 54
Report
[2003] 2 SCR 504
Case number
28370, 28372
Judges
McLachlin, Beverley; Gonthier, Charles Doherty; Iacobucci, Frank; Major, John C.; Bastarache, Michel; Binnie, William Ian Corneil; Arbour, Louise; LeBel, Louis; Deschamps, Marie
On appeal from
Nova Scotia
Subjects
Administrative law
Constitutional law
Notes
SCC Case Information: 28372, 28370
Decision Content
Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Martin; Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Laseur, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 504, 2003 SCC 54
Donald Martin Appellant
v.
Workers’ Compensation Board of Nova Scotia and
Attorney General of Nova Scotia Respondents
and
Nova Scotia Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal,
Ontario Network of Injured Workers Groups,
Canadian Labour Congress,
Attorney General of Ontario,
Attorney General of British Columbia and
Workers’ Compensation Board of Alberta Interveners
and between
Ruth A. Laseur Appellant
v.
Workers’ Compensation Board of Nova Scotia and
Attorney General of Nova Scotia Respondents
and
Nova Scotia Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal,
Ontario Network of Injured Workers Groups,
Canadian Labour Congress,
Attorney General of Ontario,
Attorney General of British Columbia and
Workers’ Compensation Board of Alberta Interveners
Indexed as: Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Martin; Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Laseur
Neutral citation: 2003 SCC 54.
File Nos.: 28372, 28370.
2002: December 9; 2003: October 3.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for nova scotia
Administrative law — Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal — Jurisdiction — Charter issues — Constitutional validity of provisions of Appeals Tribunal’s enabling statute — Whether Appeals Tribunal has jurisdiction to apply Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Workers’ Compensation Act, S.N.S. 1994-95, c. 10, s. 10B — Functional Restoration (Multi-Faceted Pain Services) Program Regulations, N.S. Reg. 57/96.
Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Equality rights — Workers’ compensation legislation excluding chronic pain from purview of regular workers’ compensation system and providing in lieu of benefits normally available to injured workers four-week functional restoration program beyond which no further benefits are available — Whether legislation infringes s. 15(1) of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — If so, whether infringement justifiable under s. 1 of Charter — Workers’ Compensation Act, S.N.S. 1994-95, c. 10, s. 10B — Functional Restoration (Multi-Faceted Pain Services) Program Regulations, N.S. Reg. 57/96.
Administrative law — Boards and tribunals — Jurisdiction — Constitutional issues — Powers of administrative tribunals to determine questions of constitutional law — Appropriate test.
The appellants, L and M, both suffer from the disability of chronic pain attributable to a work-related injury. M worked as a foreman and sustained a lumbar sprain. In the following months, he returned to work several times, but recurring pain required him to stop. He attended a work conditioning and hardening program. During this period, the Workers’ Compensation Board of Nova Scotia provided him with temporary disability benefits and rehabilitation services. When his temporary benefits were discontinued, M sought review of this decision, but his claim was denied by the Board. L was employed as a bus driver and injured her back and her right hand when she slipped and fell from the bumper of her bus. She received temporary disability benefits. Although L attempted to return to work on several occasions, she found that performing her duties aggravated her condition. She was denied a permanent partial disability award and vocational rehabilitation assistance. M and L appealed the Board’s decisions to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal on the ground that the Functional Restoration (Multi-Faceted Pain Services) Program Regulations and portions of s. 10B of the Workers’ Compensation Act infringed s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . These provisions exclude chronic pain from the purview of the regular workers’ compensation system and provide, in lieu of the benefits normally available to injured workers, a four-week Functional Restoration Program beyond which no further benefits are available. The Board challenged the Appeals Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear the Charter argument.
The Appeals Tribunal affirmed its jurisdiction to apply the Charter and allowed M’s appeal on the merits, holding that the Regulations and s. 10B(c) of the Act violated s. 15 of the Charter and that these violations were not justified under s. 1 . M was awarded temporary benefits from August 6 to October 15, 1996. In L’s appeal, the Appeals Tribunal concluded, based on the reasons given in M’s appeal, that s. 10A and s. 10B(b) and (c) of the Act also violated s. 15(1) of the Charter and were not saved by s. 15(2) or s. 1 ; however, the Appeals Tribunal found that while L suffered from chronic pain attributable to her work injury, her permanent medical impairment rating under the applicable guidelines was 0 percent, thus barring her from obtaining permanent impairment or vocational rehabilitation. The Board appealed the Appeals Tribunal’s Charter conclusions, M cross-appealed the cut-off of benefits as of October 15, 1996, and L cross-appealed the refusal to award benefits. The Court of Appeal allowed the Board’s appeals and dismissed the cross-appeals. The court found that the Appeals Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider the constitutional validity of the Act and that, in any event, the chronic pain provisions did not demean the human dignity of the claimants and thus did not violate s. 15(1) of the Charter .
Held: The appeals should be allowed. Section 10B of the Act and the Regulations in their entirety infringe s. 15(1) of the Charter and the infringement is not justified under s. 1 . The challenged provisions are of no force or effect by operation of s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 . The general declaration of invalidity is postponed for six months from the date of this judgment. In M’s case, the decision rendered by the Appeals Tribunal is reinstated. L’s case is returned to the Board.
The Constitution is the supreme law of Canada and, by virtue of s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 , the question of constitutional validity inheres in every legislative enactment. From this principle of constitutional supremacy flows, as a practical corollary, the idea that Canadians should be entitled to assert the rights and freedoms that the Constitution guarantees them in the most accessible forum available, without the need for parallel proceedings before the courts. To allow an administrative tribunal to decide Charter issues does not undermine the role of the courts as final arbiters of constitutionality in Canada. Administrative tribunal decisions based on the Charter are subject to judicial review on a correctness standard. In addition, the constitutional remedies available to administrative tribunals are limited and do not include general declarations of invalidity. A determination by a tribunal that a provision of its enabling statute is invalid pursuant to the Charter is not binding on future decision-makers, within or outside the tribunal’s administrative scheme. Only by obtaining a formal declaration of invalidity by a court can a litigant establish the general invalidity of a legislative provision for all future cases.
The Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the Appeals Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of the challenged provisions of the Act and the Regulations. Administrative tribunals which have jurisdiction, explicit or implied, to decide questions of law arising under a legislative provision are presumed to have concomitant jurisdiction to decide the constitutional validity of that provision. In applying this approach, there is no need to draw any distinction between “general” and “limited” questions of law. Explicit jurisdiction must be found in the terms of the statutory grant of authority. Implied jurisdiction must be discerned by looking at the statute as a whole. Relevant factors will include the statutory mandate of the tribunal in issue and whether deciding questions of law is necessary to fulfilling this mandate effectively; the interaction of the tribunal in question with other elements of the administrative system; whether the tribunal is adjudicative in nature; and practical considerations, including the tribunal’s capacity to consider questions of law. Practical considerations, however, cannot override a clear implication from the statute itself. The party alleging that the tribunal lacks jurisdiction to apply the Charter may rebut the presumption by pointing to an explicit withdrawal of authority to consider the Charter ; or by convincing the court that an examination of the statutory scheme clearly leads to the conclusion that the legislature intended to exclude the Charter (or a category of questions that would include the Charter , such as constitutional questions generally) from the scope of the questions of law to be addressed by the tribunal. Such an implication should generally arise from the statute itself, rather than from external considerations. To the extent that Cooper v. Canada (Human Rights Commission), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 854, is inconsistent with this approach, it should no longer be relied upon.
The Appeals Tribunal could properly consider and decide the Charter issue raised in this case. The legislature expressly conferred on the Appeals Tribunal the authority to decide questions of law by providing, in s. 252(1) of the Act, that it “may confirm, vary or reverse the decision of a hearing officer” exercising the authority conferred upon the Board by s. 185(1) of the Act to “determine all questions of fact and law arising pursuant to this Part”. Other provisions of the Act also confirm the legislature’s intention that the Appeals Tribunal decide questions of law, including s. 256(1) , which provides for a further appeal to the Court of Appeal “on any question of law”. This suggests that the Appeals Tribunal may deal initially with such questions. The Appeals Tribunal thus has explicit jurisdiction to decide questions of law arising under the challenged provisions, a jurisdiction which is presumed to include the authority to consider their constitutional validity. This presumption is not rebutted in this case, as there is no clear implication arising from the Act that the legislature intended to exclude the Charter from the scope of the Appeals Tribunal’s authority. Even if there had been no express provision endowing the Appeals Tribunal with authority to consider and decide questions of law arising under the Act, an examination of the statutory scheme set out by the Act would lead to the conclusion that it has implied authority to do so.
The Court of Appeal also erred in concluding that the challenged provisions of the Act and the Regulations did not infringe s. 15(1) of the Charter . The appropriate comparator group for the s. 15(1) analysis in this case is the group of workers subject to the Act who do not have chronic pain and are eligible for compensation for their employment-related injuries. By entirely excluding chronic pain from the application of the general compensation provisions of the Act and limiting the applicable benefits to a four-week Functional Restoration Program for workers injured after February 1, 1996, the Act and the Regulations clearly impose differential treatment upon injured workers suffering from chronic pain on the basis of the nature of their physical disability, an enumerated ground under s. 15(1) of the Charter . The view that since both the claimants and the comparator group suffer from physical disabilities, differential treatment of chronic pain within the workers’ compensation scheme is not based on physical disability must be rejected. Differential treatment can occur on the basis of an enumerated ground despite the fact that not all persons belonging to the relevant group are equally mistreated. Distinguishing injured workers with chronic pain from those without is still a disability-based distinction. Although, under the current guidelines, L would be found to have a 0 percent impairment rating and would thus be denied benefits anyway, deprivation of access to an institution available to others, even though the individual bringing the claim would not necessarily derive immediate benefits from such access, constitutes differential treatment. In the context of the Act, and given the nature of chronic pain, the differential treatment is discriminatory. It is discriminatory because it does not correspond to the actual needs and circumstances of injured workers suffering from chronic pain, who are deprived of any individual assessment of their needs and circumstances. Such workers are, instead, subject to uniform, limited benefits based on their presumed characteristics as a group. The scheme also ignores the needs of those workers who, despite treatment, remain permanently disabled by chronic pain. Nothing indicates that the scheme is aimed at improving the circumstances of a more disadvantaged group, or that the interests affected are merely economic or otherwise minor. On the contrary, the denial of the reality of the pain suffered by the affected workers reinforces widespread negative assumptions held by employers, compensation officials and some members of the medical profession. A reasonable person in circumstances similar to those of L and M, fully apprised of all the relevant circumstances and taking into account the relevant contextual factors, would conclude that the challenged provisions have the effect of demeaning the dignity of chronic pain sufferers.
The infringement of L’s and M’s equality rights cannot be justified under s. 1 of the Charter . The first objective of maintaining the financial viability of the Accident Fund is not pressing and substantial. Budgetary considerations in and of themselves cannot justify violating a Charter right, although they may be relevant in determining the appropriate degree of deference to governmental choices based on a non-financial objective. Likewise, the second objective of developing a consistent legislative response to chronic pain claims cannot stand on its own. Mere administrative expediency or conceptual elegance cannot be sufficiently pressing and substantial to override a Charter right. This objective only becomes meaningful when examined with the third objective of avoiding fraudulent claims based on chronic pain. Developing a consistent legislative response to the special issues raised by chronic pain claims — such as determining whether the pain is actually caused by the work-related accident and assessing the relevant degree of impairment — in order to avoid fraudulent claims is a pressing and substantial objective. The challenged provisions of the Act and the Regulations are rationally connected to this objective. It is obvious, however, that the blanket exclusion of chronic pain from the workers’ compensation system does not minimally impair the rights of chronic pain sufferers. The challenged provisions make no attempt whatsoever to determine who is genuinely suffering and needs compensation, and who may be abusing the system. They ignore the very real needs of the many workers who are in fact impaired by chronic pain and whose condition is not appropriately remedied by the four-week Functional Restoration Program. The fourth objective is to implement early medical intervention and return to work as the optimal treatment for chronic pain. Assuming that this objective is pressing and substantial and that the challenged provisions are rationally connected to it, they do not minimally impair the rights of chronic pain sufferers. No evidence indicates that an automatic cut-off of benefits regardless of individual needs is necessary to achieve that goal. This is particularly true with respect to ameliorative benefits which would actually facilitate return to work, such as vocational rehabilitation, medical aid and the rights to re-employment and accommodation. Moreover, the legislation deprives workers whose chronic pain does not improve as a result of early medical intervention and who return to work from receiving any benefits beyond the four-week Functional Restoration Program. Others, like L, are not even admissible to this program because of the date of their injuries. The deleterious effects of the challenged provisions on these workers clearly outweigh their potential beneficial effects.
Cases Cited
Overruled: Cooper v. Canada (Human Rights Commission), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 854; discussed: Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Assn. v. Douglas College, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 570; Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5; Tétreault-Gadoury v. Canada (Employment and Immigration Commission), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 22; referred to: Egan v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; M. v. H., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3; Battlefords and District Co-operative Ltd. v. Gibbs, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 566; Granovsky v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 703, 2000 SCC 28; Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; Bell Canada v. Canada (Human Rights Commission), [2001] 2 F.C. 392, rev’d [2001] 3 F.C. 481; Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Reynolds (1997), 139 F.T.R. 315; McLeod v. Egan, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 517; David Taylor & Son, Ltd. v. Barnett, [1953] 1 All E.R. 843; Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada (Labour Relations Board), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 157; Pasiechnyk v. Saskatchewan (Workers’ Compensation Board), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 890; Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497; Reference re Workers’ Compensation Act, 1983 (Nfld.), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 922; Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1252; Brooks v. Canada Safeway Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1219; Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625; Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 241; Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; Lavoie v. Canada, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 769, 2002 SCC 23; Corbiere v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 203; Lovelace v. Ontario, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 950, 2000 SCC 37; R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v. British Columbia (Council of Human Rights), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 868; British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3; Gosselin v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2002] 4 S.C.R. 429, 2002 SCC 84; R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624; Reference re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court of Prince Edward Island, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3; Schachter v. Canada, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; White v. Slawter (1996), 149 N.S.R. (2d) 321; Marinelli v. Keigan (1999), 173 N.S.R. (2d) 56.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1 , 15 , 24(1) .
Constitution Act, 1982, s. 52(1) .
Constitutional Questions Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 89.
Functional Restoration (Multi-Faceted Pain Services) Program Regulations, N.S. Reg. 57/96, ss. 2(b), 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.
Public Inquiries Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 372.
Workers’ Compensation Act, S.N.S. 1994-95, c. 10, ss. 10(1), 10A [ad. 1999, c. 1, s. 1], 10B [idem], 10E [idem], 28, 84, 90, 91, 113, 178(1), 180, 183 [am. idem, s. 19], 183(5A) [ad. idem], 185(1), 199(1), (2), 200(1), 202(a), 238(5), 240, 243 [rep. & sub. idem, s. 30], 245(1)(d), 246(1), (3) [ad. idem, s. 31], 248(1), (3), 252(1), 253(1), 256(1) [am. idem, s. 36].
Authors Cited
Canada. Association of Workers’ Compensation Boards of Canada. Compensating for Chronic Pain — 2000. Mississauga, Ont.: AWCBC, 2000.
McAllister, Debra M. “Administrative Tribunals and the Charter : A Tale of Form Conquering Substance”, in L.S.U.C. Special Lectures 1992 — Administrative Law: Principles, Practice and Pluralism. Scarborough, Ont. : Carswell, 1993, 131.
Murray, T. J. Chronic Pain. Report prepared for the Workers’ Compensation Board of Nova Scotia. Halifax: Workers’ Compensation Board of Nova Scotia, 1995.
Ontario. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. Chronic Pain Initiative: Report of the Chair of the Chronic Pain Panels. Toronto: WSIB, 2000.
Roman, Andrew J. “Case Comment: Cooper v. Canada (Human Rights Commission)” (1997), 43 Admin. L.R. (2d) 243.
APPEALS from judgments of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (2000), 192 D.L.R. (4th) 611, 188 N.S.R. (2d) 330, 587 A.P.R. 330, 26 Admin L.R. (3d) 90, 84 C.R.R. (2d) 246, [2000] N.S.J. No. 353 (QL), 2000 NSCA 126, allowing the appeals and dismissing the cross-appeals from the decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal. Appeals allowed.
Kenneth H. LeBlanc, Anne S. Clark, Anne Derrick, Q.C., and Patricia J. Wilson, for the appellants.
Brian A. Crane, Q.C., David P. S. Farrar and Janet Curry, for the respondent the Workers’ Compensation Board of Nova Scotia.
Catherine J. Lunn, for the respondent the Attorney General of Nova Scotia.
John P. Merrick, Q.C., and Louanne Labelle, for the intervener the Nova Scotia Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal.
Ena Chadha and William Holder, for the intervener the Ontario Network of Injured Workers Groups.
Steven Barrett and Ethan Poskanzer, for the intervener the Canadian Labour Congress.
Robert Earl Charney, for the intervener the Attorney General of Ontario.
Kathryn L. Kickbush, for the intervener the Attorney General of British Columbia.
Written submissions only by Curtis Craig, for the intervener the Workers’ Compensation Board of Alberta.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
Gonthier J. —
I. Introduction
1 Chronic pain syndrome and related medical conditions have emerged in recent years as one of the most difficult problems facing workers’ compensation schemes in Canada and around the world. There is no authoritative definition of chronic pain. It is, however, generally considered to be pain that persists beyond the normal healing time for the underlying injury or is disproportionate to such injury, and whose existence is not supported by objective findings at the site of the injury under current medical techniques. Despite this lack of objective findings, there is no doubt that chronic pain patients are suffering and in distress, and that the disability they experience is real. While there is at this time no clear explanation for chronic pain, recent work on the nervous system suggests that it may result from pathological changes in the nervous mechanisms that result in pain continuing and non-painful stimuli being perceived as painful. These changes, it is believed, may be precipitated by peripheral events, such as an accident, but may persist well beyond the normal recovery time for the precipitating event. Despite this reality, since chronic pain sufferers are impaired by a condition that cannot be supported by objective findings, they have been subjected to persistent suspicions of malingering on the part of employers, compensation officials and even physicians. Ruth Laseur and Donald Martin are the appellants in this case. Both suffer from the disability of chronic pain.
2 Courts are not the appropriate forum for an evaluation of the available medical evidence concerning chronic pain for general scientific purposes. Nevertheless, because disability is an enumerated ground in s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , the question whether the way in which a government handles chronic pain in providing services amounts to discrimination is a proper subject of judicial review. More specifically, these appeals concern the constitutional validity of s. 10B of the Nova Scotia Workers’ Compensation Act, S.N.S. 1994-95, c. 10, as amended by S.N.S. 1999, c. 1 (the “Act”), and of the Functional Restoration (Multi-Faceted Pain Services) Program Regulations, N.S. Reg. 57/96 (the “FRP Regulations”), adopted under that Act. These provisions exclude chronic pain from the purview of the regular workers’ compensation system and provide, in lieu of the benefits normally available to injured workers, a four-week Functional Restoration (Multi-Faceted Pain Services) Program (the “Functional Restoration Program”) beyond which no further benefits are available. A preliminary issue is whether the Nova Scotia Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal (the “Appeals Tribunal”), an administrative tribunal set up to hear appeals from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board of Nova Scotia (the “Board”), had jurisdiction to decline to apply the challenged provisions to the appellants on the ground that these provisions violate the Charter .
3 In my view, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the Appeals Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of the challenged provisions of the Act and the FRP Regulations. I am of the view that the rules concerning the jurisdiction of administrative tribunals to apply the Charter established by this Court in Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Assn. v. Douglas College, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 570, Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5, and Tétreault-Gadoury v. Canada (Employment and Immigration Commission), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 22, ought to be reappraised and restated as a clear set of guidelines. Administrative tribunals which have jurisdiction — whether explicit or implied — to decide questions of law arising under a legislative provision are presumed to have concomitant jurisdiction to decide the constitutional validity of that provision. This presumption may only be rebutted by showing that the legislature clearly intended to exclude Charter issues from the tribunal’s authority over questions of law. To the extent that the majority reasons in Cooper v. Canada (Human Rights Commission), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 854, are inconsistent with this approach, I am of the view that they should no longer be relied upon.
4 Here, the Nova Scotia legislature expressly conferred on the Appeals Tribunal the authority to decide questions of law by providing, in s. 252(1) of the Act, that it “may confirm, vary or reverse the decision of a hearing officer” exercising the authority conferred upon the Board by s. 185(1) of the Act to “determine all questions of fact and law arising pursuant to this Part”. Other provisions of the Act also confirm the legislature’s intention that the Appeals Tribunal decide questions of law, for instance by allowing the Chair, under certain circumstances, to direct cases involving “important or novel questions or issues of general significance” or issues of “law and general policy” to the Appeals Tribunal for consideration (s. 199(1) and (2)), and by providing for a further appeal to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal “on any question of law” (s. 256(1)). The Appeals Tribunal thus has explicit jurisdiction to decide questions of law arising under the challenged provisions, a jurisdiction which is presumed to include the authority to consider their constitutional validity. This presumption is not rebutted in this case, as there is no clear implication arising from the Act that the legislature intended to exclude the Charter from the scope of the Appeals Tribunal’s authority.
5 In my view, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal also erred in concluding that the challenged provisions of the Act and the FRP Regulations did not violate s. 15(1) of the Charter . By entirely excluding chronic pain from the application of the general compensation provisions of the Act and limiting the applicable benefits to a four-week Functional Restoration Program for workers injured after February 1, 1996, the Act and the FRP Regulations clearly impose differential treatment upon injured workers suffering from chronic pain on the basis of the nature of their physical disability, an enumerated ground under s. 15(1) of the Charter . In the context of the Act, and given the nature of chronic pain, this differential treatment is discriminatory. It is discriminatory because it does not correspond to the actual needs and circumstances of injured workers suffering from chronic pain, who are deprived of any individual assessment of their needs and circumstances. Such workers are, instead, subject to uniform, limited benefits based on their presumed characteristics as a group. The scheme also ignores the needs of those workers who, despite treatment, remain permanently disabled by chronic pain. Nothing indicates that the scheme is aimed at improving the circumstances of a more disadvantaged group, or that the interests affected are merely economic or otherwise minor. On the contrary, the denial of the reality of the pain suffered by the affected workers reinforces widespread negative assumptions held by employers, compensation officials and some members of the medical profession, and demeans the essential human dignity of chronic pain sufferers. The challenged provisions clearly violate s. 15(1) of the Charter .
6 Finally, I am of the view that this violation cannot be justified under s. 1 of the Charter . On the one hand, budgetary considerations in and of themselves cannot justify violating a Charter right, although they may be relevant in determining the appropriate degree of deference to governmental choices based on a non-financial objective. On the other hand, developing a consistent legislative response to the special issues raised by chronic pain claims — such as determining whether the pain is actually caused by the work-related accident and assessing the relevant degree of impairment — in order to avoid fraudulent claims is a pressing and substantial objective. However, it is obvious that the blanket exclusion of chronic pain from the workers’ compensation system does not minimally impair the rights of chronic pain sufferers. The challenged provisions make no attempt whatsoever to determine who is genuinely suffering and needs compensation and who may be abusing the system. They ignore the very real needs of the many workers who are in fact impaired by chronic pain and whose condition is not appropriately remedied by the four-week Functional Restoration Program. A last alleged objective of the legislation is to implement early medical intervention and return to work as the optimal treatment for chronic pain. Assuming that this objective is pressing and substantial and that the challenged provisions are rationally connected to it, however, they do not minimally impair the rights or chronic pain sufferers. No evidence indicates that an automatic cut-off of benefits regardless of individual needs is necessary to achieve that goal. This is particularly true with respect to ameliorative benefits which would actually facilitate return to work, such as vocational rehabilitation, medical aid and the rights to re-employment and accommodation.
7 I thus conclude that the challenged provisions violate the Charter and should be struck down.
II. Facts
A. The Laseur Appeal
8 The appellant Ruth A. Laseur was employed as a bus driver by the Metropolitan Authority (Metro Transit Division) in Halifax, Nova Scotia. On November 13, 1987, she injured her back and her right hand when she slipped and fell from the bumper of her bus while attempting to clean the windshield. The accident was reported to the Board and she continued to work until February 16, 1988, with occasional days off due to back pain. She received temporary disability benefits for various periods between February 16, 1988, and October 30, 1989, when the benefits were terminated. Although Ms. Laseur attempted to return to work on several occasions, she found that performing her duties aggravated her condition.
9 Ms. Laseur continued to pursue her workers’ compensation claim and returned to work part-time on February 23, 1990. A summary report by the Board on February 21, 1990, noted that she had “fallen into the usual chronic pain picture” and considered that there was “no objective evidence to justify a PMI (permanent medical impairment) examination”. She worked part‑time until April 10, 1990, when her employer required her to return to full‑time hours. This aggravated her back pain. She stopped work on April 18, then shortly returned on a part‑time basis until July 30. Later, after numerous treatments for her back pain remained ineffective, her family physician ordered her to stop working again.
10 Ms. Laseur appealed the Board’s decision to terminate her temporary disability benefits to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (as it was then called). In October 1990, the Board awarded her further temporary disability benefits until July 30, 1990, which were to be continued beyond that date until an assessment could be carried out for permanent partial disability benefits. On January 17, 1991, Ms. Laseur attended for an estimation of her permanent medical impairment. The medical services administrator noted that “[t]his is basically a chronic pain problem, perhaps even a chronic pain syndrome although she seems to be a very pleasant individual with not the usual features of this type of problem. However, there is no organic evidence to justify a PMI as far as I can tell based on the examination done today.” A permanent partial disability award was denied.
11 After being denied accommodation by her employer and permanent benefits by the Board, Ms. Laseur resigned from her position. She took courses in accounting and business computer programming, which she self-financed, notably by borrowing money from her mother-in-law. She did well and, upon graduating from her last course in 1994, found employment with a software firm in Edmonton. As she continued to suffer from chronic back pain, her work schedule was modified and she was allowed occasionally to work from home. She continued to pursue her claim in Nova Scotia for permanent partial disability benefits retroactive to January 1991. On August 12, 1994, after further medical reports, a case manager determined that Ms. Laseur was not entitled to such benefits or to vocational rehabilitation assistance. The case manager stated that “she probably has a full blown chronic pain syndrome, which is a non‑compensable condition and is well known to be virtually totally related to psychosocial factors”. This decision was affirmed by a review officer on March 21, 1996, and by a hearing officer on November 19, 1996.
12 Ms. Laseur appealed the Board’s decision to the Appeals Tribunal on the ground that portions of s. 10B of the Act, which prevents chronic pain sufferers from obtaining workers’ compensation benefits, infringed s. 15 of the Charter . The Appeals Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, but held that, even disregarding the effect of s. 10B of the Act, Ms. Laseur was not entitled to permanent impairment benefits or vocational rehabilitation assistance. The Board appealed the Appeals Tribunal’s Charter conclusions, and Ms. Laseur cross-appealed the refusal to award benefits. The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal allowed the Board’s appeal and dismissed Ms. Laseur’s cross-appeal.
B. The Martin Appeal
13 The appellant Donald Martin worked as a foreman at Suzuki Dartmouth. On February 6, 1996, he lifted a tow dolly and towed it backward about 15 feet. He experienced a sudden and severe pain in his lumbar spine and, although he remained at work that day, he later visited his family physician, who on February 8 diagnosed a lumbar sprain. In the following months, Mr. Martin returned to work several times, but recurring pain required him to stop. He attended a work conditioning and hardening program. During this period, the Board provided him with temporary disability benefits and rehabilitation services. However, his temporary benefits were discontinued on August 6, 1996. Mr. Martin sought review of this decision, but his claim was denied. The review officer noted that there was no demonstrated pathology to support Mr. Martin’s complaint of pain, that he was developing early signs of chronic pain and that under the FRP Regulations, chronic pain is generally excluded from the operation of the Act. A further appeal to a hearing officer was also denied.
14 Mr. Martin appealed the Board’s decision to the Appeals Tribunal on the ground that the FRP Regulations and s. 10B(c) of the Act infringed s. 15 of the Charter . The Board challenged the Appeal Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear the Charter argument. The Appeals Tribunal affirmed its jurisdiction to apply the Charter and allowed the appeal on the merits, holding that the FRP Regulations and s. 10B(c) of the Act violated s. 15 of the Charter and that these violations are not justified under s. 1 . Mr. Martin was awarded temporary benefits from August 6 to October 15, 1996. The Board appealed the Appeals Tribunal’s Charter conclusions, and Mr. Martin cross-appealed the cut-off of benefits as of October 15, 1996. The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal allowed the Board’s appeal and dismissed Mr. Martin’s cross-appeal.
III. Judgments Below
A. Nova Scotia Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal
15 In its preliminary decision on jurisdiction in the Martin appeal, rendered on August 27, 1999, the Appeals Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to make determinations of all questions of law, including whether the Act or the FRP Regulations violated the Charter . It did so on the basis of s. 185(1) of the Act, which granted the Board “exclusive jurisdiction to inquire into, hear and determine all questions of fact and law arising pursuant to this Part”, “[s]ubject to the rights of appeal provided in this Act” and of s. 243 , which provided a right of appeal from the Board to the Appeals Tribunal. The Appeals Tribunal applied this decision in the Laseur appeal.
16 In the Martin appeal, decided on January 31, 2000, the Appeals Tribunal concluded that the FRP Regulations violated s. 15(1) of the Charter . It found that workers suffering from chronic pain were subjected to differential treatment, in that the benefits to which they were entitled were significantly restricted and their cases were not determined having regard to their individual circumstances. The Appeals Tribunal also found that such differential treatment was founded on disability caused by chronic pain, and that that disability constitutes either a physical or a mental disability under s. 15(1) . Finally, it held that the operation of the FRP Regulations was discriminatory in that it stereotyped workers with chronic pain and determined their cases without reference to their individual circumstances, thus impacting their dignity by implying that their claims were less valid than those of injured workers without chronic pain.
17 The Appeals Tribunal further found that this infringement was not justified under s. 15(2) or s. 1 of the Charter . In its view, the blanket exclusion of chronic pain from the operation of the Act illustrated that the objective of the FRP Regulations was not to ameliorate the condition of workers affected by chronic pain, but rather to provide them with very limited, structured benefits. Turning to s. 1 , the Appeals Tribunal found that the objective of the FRP Regulations was pressing and substantial, as they attempted to provide a compensation scheme to individuals whose disability presented a challenge to the normal system. The Appeals Tribunal found, however, that the FRP Regulations did not pass the minimal impairment test, as they effectively precluded c