A Federal Court judge has dismissed a constitutional challenge to $20,000 caps on pain and suffering damages under the Canadian Human Rights Act, ruling that the case failed to establish discrimination under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) and Parkdale Community Legal Services argued the statutory caps violated equality rights by creating a two-tier system of damages — one for human rights complainants and another for those pursuing common law remedies. They sought to have the caps declared unconstitutional and removed entirely.
The court granted public interest standing to both organizations but ultimately ruled their case lacked the legal foundation required under section 15 of the Charter.
Damages caps unchanged since 1998
The Canadian Human Rights Act has limited monetary damages since 1977. The caps were initially set at $5,000 and increased to $20,000 in 1998, where they remain today. The legislation allows the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to award up to $20,000 for pain and suffering, and an additional $20,000 for willful or reckless discriminatory conduct.
P.S.A.C. represents approximately 170,000 federally regulated employees, while P.C.L.S. provides legal services to low-income workers in Toronto. Both organizations regularly handle human rights complaints and argued the caps deter complaints and leave victims undercompensated.
Flawed comparator groups
The court found fundamental problems with the plaintiffs’ comparator groups — the basis for proving discrimination under Charter section 15 analysis.
The first proposed comparator group consisted of individuals without protected characteristics who don’t experience discrimination and don’t require human rights remedies. The court called this group “overly broad such that it does not allow for meaningful comparison.”
The second group included individuals receiving uncapped damages under common law tort and wrongful dismissal actions. The court rejected this comparison, finding no overlap between the human rights regime and common law that would justify such a comparison.
“These are two distinct regimes — statutory law and common law — that apply to different contexts,” the court ruled. “There is no support for reaching from one into the other to find a comparator group.”
Evidence concerns
The court identified several problems with the plaintiffs’ evidence. Expert statistical analysis comparing human rights awards to other damages failed to disaggregate data by protected groups, making it impossible to show how different groups were affected.
The court noted that “not all prohibited grounds under the CHRA constitute an enumerated or analogous ground under section 15 of the Charter.” The study combined all cases together without distinguishing between recognized Charter grounds and those not yet established.
Methodological concerns about the statistical analysis further undermined the evidence. The defendant’s expert identified problems with sample selection and the suitability of comparing different jurisdictions and legal regimes.
Collective approach criticized
The plaintiffs framed their case around a collective group of all successful human rights complainants, regardless of which protected ground formed the basis of their complaint. The court found this approach “flattens the experiences of discrimination” and fails to engage with the distinct experiences of different protected groups.
“Identity is contextual and requires engaging not simply with ‘a catalogue of personal characteristics’ but rather with the experience of individuals with those characteristics,” the court stated.
The ruling emphasized that equality rights analysis requires examining the specific disadvantages faced by each protected group, not making broad assumptions about collective impact.
Broader legislative context ignored
The court criticized the plaintiffs for focusing solely on the damages caps while ignoring the full range of remedies available under the Canadian Human Rights Act. These include measures to prevent future discrimination, access to denied opportunities, compensation for lost wages and expenses, and additional costs.
“Simply comparing the CHRA damages awards head-to-head with analogous damages awards disregards how these awards factor into the larger remedial picture of their respective regimes,” the court ruled.
Public interest standing granted
Despite dismissing the case on its merits, the court granted public interest standing to both organizations. The ruling found they had sufficient expertise and resources to advance the claims, and that the case raised serious issues of public interest affecting a large group of people.
The court noted that in 48 years since the Act’s enactment, no complainant had challenged the constitutionality of the damages provisions before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, supporting the argument that public interest litigation was the most efficient way to address the issue.
Expert evidence admitted
The court admitted expert reports from both sides despite methodological disputes. The plaintiffs’ experts examined procedural barriers facing complainants and conducted statistical analysis comparing damages across jurisdictions. The defendant’s expert identified various flaws in the statistical methodology.
While admitting the evidence, the court ultimately found the statistical analysis insufficient to support the discrimination claims due to the methodological concerns and failure to disaggregate data by protected characteristics.
Policy versus constitutional matter
The court acknowledged calls from former Supreme Court justices to eliminate or increase the damages caps, noting they have remained unchanged for over 25 years. However, the ruling emphasized this represented a policy choice for Parliament rather than a constitutional violation.
“This is a policy issue, not a constitutional matter,” the court concluded.
The ruling leaves the $20,000 caps in place and dismisses both organizations’ constitutional challenge. P.S.A.C. was ordered to pay $15,000 in costs to the federal government.
For more information, see Parkdale Community Legal Services v. Canada, 2025 FC 912 (CanLII).
