In a May 22 decision in Parkdale Community Legal Services v. Canada, 2025 FC 912, Justice Anne M. Turley found that the plaintiffs — Toronto’s Parkdale Community Legal Services (PCLS) clinic and the federal employees’ union, the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) — failed to establish a prima facie s. 15(1) breach, and that damages caps under the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) are a policy issue for Parliament rather than a constitutional matter.
The plaintiffs’ challenges were originally separate but were later combined.
The court rejected the Crown’s first two arguments: that the plaintiffs’ motion was not suitable for summary judgment because of conflicting expert evidence, and that the plaintiffs lacked public interest standing to bring the constitutional challenge.
“The Plaintiffs have advanced a broad and novel Charter claim — that the caps discriminate against all successful CHRA complainants,” wrote Justice Turley, while commending the efforts of plaintiffs’ counsel.
She agreed with lawyers for the government, however, that the plaintiffs’ comparative analysis failed by contrasting successful CHRA claimants with, first, all individuals who have not experienced discrimination and, second, individuals who receive analogous common law damages.
“While mirror comparator groups are not required,” she wrote, “a comparative analysis remains relevant at the first step of the subsection 15(1) analysis, whether the claim is one of direct or indirect discrimination.”
“There must be a distinction between the claimant group compared to others in the social and political setting in which the question arises,” added Justice Turley. “Here, the two comparisons advanced by the Plaintiffs fail to satisfy this first step.”
In dismissing the claim, she also agreed with the Crown’s contention that PCLS and PSAC failed to provide a solid evidentiary foundation.
“They allege that the caps discriminate based on all enumerated and analogous grounds,” she noted. “However, their evidence is highly general, not disaggregated, and fails to engage with the distinct lived experience of individuals in each protected group.”
Parkdale Community Legal Services, founded in 1971 by local residents, community organizations and York University’s Osgoode Hall Law School, is one of Canada’s first and largest community legal clinics.
In launching the constitutional challenge in June 2022, PCLS lawyer John No, now the clinic’s interim director, said the federal human rights process is slow, resource-intensive and does not satisfy the guarantee of equal protection and benefit of the law set out in s. 15 of the Charter.
“If the Canadian government is serious about preventing harassment and discrimination, it needs to be reflected in the legislation,” he said in a news release at the time.
“We represent individuals in Ontario workplaces, including survivors of sexual violence and harassment, who are able to seek their full damages for a breach of their human rights, sometimes receiving damages in the hundreds of thousands for mental distress,” he added. “We also represent employees in federal workplaces. Their identical claims are limited to $20,000.”
Employment and labour law specialist Andrew Montague‑Reinholdt, a partner with Ottawa-based Nelligan Law who served as co-counsel for PCLS, said the clinic and its legal team were disappointed with the court’s decision and are contemplating next steps.
“It is shocking that the Government of Canada has not acted to address the obvious and discriminatory shortcomings of the Canadian Human Rights Act regime, particularly given the repeated calls for change, including from many former Supreme Court of Canada justices,” he said in an email to Law360 Canada.
He said the CHRA’s cap on damages has helped render it ineffective in counteracting instances of discrimination in federally regulated industries.
“As anyone trying to navigate the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal processes knows,” he said, “the remedies available to complainants fail to adequately prevent or remedy instances of discrimination.”
Under the CHRA, an additional $20,000 may be awarded where it is found that the employer discriminated in a wilful or reckless manner.
In an August 2023 news release announcing its constitutional challenge, PSAC said the global cap of $40,000 does not meaningfully compensate a worker for pain, suffering and wilful discrimination engaged in by an employer — especially considering that the amount has not even been adjusted for inflation since the legislation came into force 25 years ago.
“Limiting damages under the CHRA is an added act of discrimination against individuals who have already experienced harm from discriminatory treatment on the part of their employer,” said the PSAC release.
Provincial human rights tribunals may award significantly higher damages, leading to inconsistencies across Canada.
Counsel for PCLS also included Nelligan partner Malini Vijaykumar and Claire Boychuk, a labour and employment law specialist in the Ottawa office of RavenLaw.
Counsel for PSAC were Ottawa-based human rights lawyer Andrew Astritis with RavenLaw, RavenLaw labour and employment lawyer Amanda Montague-Reinholdt, and Zachary Rodgers and Adam Gregory of RavenLaw.
Counsel for the Government of Canada were Sean Stynes and Adrian Johnston with the Department of Justice Canada.
Justice Canada spokesperson Ian McLeod declined to provide detailed comment.
“The plaintiffs have until June 23, 2025, to file an appeal of the decision,” he said in an email to Law360 Canada. “It would be inappropriate to provide additional information at this time.”
If you have any information, story ideas or news tips for Law360 Canada, please contact John Schofield at john.schofield1@lexisnexis.ca or call 905-415-5815.