For the following enclosed case: Prepare short summary of the case Identify the parties involved in the case Determine the specific points of law illustrated in the case. Outline the potential arguments on both sides as lawyers would do in a court of law. Raise the points of law and any precedent cases related to the case Put the case analyses into slideshow . Sources: Legal Fundamentals for Canadian Business: Yates Canadian Cases in Business Law Meredith & Mackintosh The Law and Business Administration in Canada, J. E. Smyth, D. A. Soberman, A. J. Easson, S. A. M Supreme Court of Canada.

CASE 1 Liebmann v. Canada (Minister of National Defence) In the following case, it is s.15 of the Charter that the appellant is using as the basis of his Charter challenge. His challenge is not to a law, but to a decision made by a representative of the Canadian Armed Forces, SEXTON J.A. Lieutenant Andrew S. Liebmann was such a proven and accomplished member of the Canadian Forces Naval Reserve that he was nominated for the important post of executive assistant to the Commander of the Canadian Forces Task Force in the Middle East during the Persian Gulf crisis. Nonetheless, he was not appointed to the position. The only objection taken to his nomination was his religion. He was Jewish. This appeal deals with his claim that the refusal to appoint him to the position to which he was nominated constituted discrimination contrary to s.15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Facts 2 The appellant joined the Naval Reserve in 1983 and served in a variety of roles while completing a university degree and during subsequent employment as a public affairs specialist. By late 1990, he had attained the rank of Lieutenant and had qualified as a ship's officer of the watch and as a clearance diver. He was serving as an officer in HMCS Discovery, the Naval Reserve Division (or unit) in Vancouver. When the events giving rise to this litigation took place, he was employed by the government of British Columbia as a communications officer, serving his reserve commitment by attending at his unit several evenings a week. 3 On August 4, 1990, Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait. During the weeks that followed, Canada commenced Operation Friction the deployment of a contin- gent of military forces to the Persian Gulf region in order to enforce a number of res- olutions passed by the United Nations Security Council pursuant to Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter. The contingent, known as Canadian Forces Middle East (CFME), was commanded by Commodore Kenneth Summers. His headquarters was in the Emirate of Bahrain. Part of the headquarters' establishment included an Executive Assistant (EA) on the commander's small personal staff. 4 At the time of CFME's deployment, Canada's commitment of forces was open-ended. As such, plans were developed to rotate personnel and units after a period of time so as to maintain the force at an optimum level of readiness. On December 24. 1990, the Commander of Maritime Command, who was responsible to the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) for the generation of personnel to fill certain hendquarters posi- tions, caused a message to be sent to all Naval Reserve Divisions. A portion of that message called for nominations of officers qualified to fill the position of EA to the commander beginning in March 1991. 5. The appellant, who was highly motivated to participate in the Persian Gulf operation and who met all of the requirements set out in the message, was nominated for the EA position by his Commanding Officer. A message to that effect was sent on January 11, 1991. 6 The Maritime Command staff officers charged with recommending an offi- cer for the EA position seem to have initially looked favourably upon the appellant's nomination. On January 21, 1991, they sent a message to the Directorate of Military Manning at National Defence Headquarters, recommending that the appellant be "hired" under a reserve force contract. The message indicated that he was being con sidered for the EA position. The Commanding Officer Naval Divisions (the com- mander of all naval reserve units) concurred in the recommendation. Upon receipt of a copy of this message, the appellant, with the assistance of the regular force Administration Officer at HMCS Discovery, began to make more specific prepara tions to deploy to Bahrain, following a set of "joining instructions" which had been faxed to him. 7 At some point during the same time period, the Maritime Command staff became aware that the appellant was Jewish. 8 At that time, the Canadian Forces had no formal policy regarding the consideration of personal characteristics such as religion in the selection of personnel for employment in non-peacekeeping operations. Several staff officers and their superiors at both Maritime Command and National Defence Headquarters allegedly dismissed the possibility that under the circumstances, the appellant's religion might have a detrimen- tal impact upon his ability to effectively carry out the duties of the EA position and upon his personal safety. The result of these discussions was a decision that the appellant would not be selected for the position. In the end, the incumbent EA was not replaced 9 The appellant was informed in late January or early February of 1991 that he had not been selected for the EA position. He was upset and disappointed. He con- tacted one of the staff officers who had participated in the decision-making process and was told that the superior officers had "decided that it was better not to send a Jew to the Middle East" 10 The appellant pursued several avenues of redress, finally bringing an action in the Trial Division of this Court. In his prayer for relief he sought a declaration that the process by which his nomination was considered had infringed his constitutional right to equality under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as a num ber of statutory rights. He also sought declarations and injunctions relating to Canadian Forces Administrative Order (CFAO) 20-53, Policy for Employment of Canadian Forces Personnel on Peacekeeping Duty, which foresees the possibility that certain personnel may be restricted from participating in peacekeeping operations due to the "cultural, religious or other sensitivities of the parties or host country." 11 Following a trial that covered eleven days of testimony and argument, the Trial Judge found that "[the appellant] more than adequately fulfilled the require- ments for the posting," and that "the evidence clearly supports the [appellant's] allega- tion that he was not selected for the position of Executive Assistant because of his religion." He was "satisfied that Lieutenant Liebmann did have legitimate grievances with respect to the manner in which the defendants conducted themselves in the selec- tion process." Despite these findings, he did not directly address the appellant's alle- gation that this conduct had infringed his right to equality. 12 The Trial Judge did give some consideration to the constitutionality of CFAO 20-53, finding that it was not contrary to the equality provisions of the Charter. However, he noted that since Operation Friction was not a peacekeeping mission, there was no basis for the application of either it or any other policy that preceded it to the appellant's situation. In the result, he dismissed the appellant's claim. QUESTIONS 1. Does the Charter apply to decisions of the Canadian Forces? Explain. 2. Which section of the Charter did Mr. Liebmann use to challenge the decision? What did he have to prove to show infringement of his Charter rights?