The long court fight ensued when cab driver Satnam Vaid, who was fired from his job, was denied his right to job protection, according to the South Asian Observer.

After he was fired, Vaid went to a lower court seeking justice, but the court ruled against him, upholding parliamentary immunity for his former employer who was then speaker of the House. The case then went to the Supreme Court. 

In the ruling, which has important ramifications for the 400-year-old principle of parliamentary immunity, the court said blanket immunity makes no sense without a valid reason for invoking it.

"Parliamentary privilege is defined by the degree of autonomy necessary to perform parliament's constitutional function," Justice Ian Binnie wrote in the decision order.

The unanimous decision overturned lower court rulings that had shielded former speaker Gilbert Parent from a human rights complaint launched in 1995 by Vaid.

During his long fight for justice, Vaid, who chauffeured three speakers over a 10-year period, alleged that he was asked by his government employers to wash dishes after the former speaker fired him from his driving job.

He also alleged that Parent asked him inappropriate questions about which caste in India he had been born into. 

Vaid sought reinstatement in his job as well as $5,000 for "injured feelings, loss of dignity and mental distress".

Stopping short of granting what Vaid wanted, the Supreme Court ruling allowed his complaint to proceed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, and directed his complaint to the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, a labour relations mechanism set up for employees in his position.