Comm 393 Case Briefs
Liebmann V. Canada (Minister of National Defense)
Facts:
Liebmann applied for the position of Executive Assistant to the Commanding Officer in the Persian Gulf Operation. Staff Officers recommended he be appointed and the Commanding Officer agreed. When command staff became aware that Liebmann was Jewish they decided not to select him. Liebmann challenged the decision, as well as CFAO 20-53 (an enactment for which the decision was based upon) under s. 15 of the Charter.
Issues:
1. Should the court consider the constitutionality of CFAO 20-53?
2. Does the Charter apply to the decision not to appoint Liebmann?
3. Were Liebmann’s equality rights under s. 15 of the Charter infringed?
4. Could infringement be justified under s. 1 of the Charter?
Decisions:
1. The court should not consider the constitutionality of CFAO 20-53
2. The Charter does not apply to the decision not to appoint Liebmann
3. Liebmann’s equality rights under s. 15 of the Charter were infringed
4. The infringement could not be justified under s. 1 of the Charter
Reasons:
1. CFAO 20-53 was not the reason that Liebmann was not permitted to serve in the Persian Gulf and was not in effect when the decision not to give him the position was made. CFAO 20-53 was not relevant to the action before the court and thus should not be considered.
2. The Charter applies to decisions made under delegated statutory authority. The decision regarding Liebmann was made under the authority delegated by the National Defense Act and is thus under the authority of the Charter.
3. Liebmann was treated differently from others based on personal characteristics of the type enumerated in s. 15, and there was definite discrimination in a constitutional sense in that his dignity was demeaned.
4. The respondents did not show that it was reasonable to discriminate against Liebmann because he was Jewish.
Legal Principles:
• The Charter applies to decisions made under delegated
Facts:
Liebmann applied for the position of Executive Assistant to the Commanding Officer in the Persian Gulf Operation. Staff Officers recommended he be appointed and the Commanding Officer agreed. When command staff became aware that Liebmann was Jewish they decided not to select him. Liebmann challenged the decision, as well as CFAO 20-53 (an enactment for which the decision was based upon) under s. 15 of the Charter.
Issues:
1. Should the court consider the constitutionality of CFAO 20-53?
2. Does the Charter apply to the decision not to appoint Liebmann?
3. Were Liebmann’s equality rights under s. 15 of the Charter infringed?
4. Could infringement be justified under s. 1 of the Charter?
Decisions:
1. The court should not consider the constitutionality of CFAO 20-53
2. The Charter does not apply to the decision not to appoint Liebmann
3. Liebmann’s equality rights under s. 15 of the Charter were infringed
4. The infringement could not be justified under s. 1 of the Charter
Reasons:
1. CFAO 20-53 was not the reason that Liebmann was not permitted to serve in the Persian Gulf and was not in effect when the decision not to give him the position was made. CFAO 20-53 was not relevant to the action before the court and thus should not be considered.
2. The Charter applies to decisions made under delegated statutory authority. The decision regarding Liebmann was made under the authority delegated by the National Defense Act and is thus under the authority of the Charter.
3. Liebmann was treated differently from others based on personal characteristics of the type enumerated in s. 15, and there was definite discrimination in a constitutional sense in that his dignity was demeaned.
4. The respondents did not show that it was reasonable to discriminate against Liebmann because he was Jewish.
Legal Principles:
• The Charter applies to decisions made under delegated