PDF Version: Privacy and Video Surveillance on Campus

With thanks to Greg Hagen for his helpful suggestions on a draft of the blog.

Recently, I was walking across the campus at the University of Calgary and noticed that there was a display by an anti-abortion group (Campus Pro-Life Club). Because of a dispute over permission to have the display, the University had posted warning signs and barricades. One University sign indicated that the group was videotaping everyone who spoke to the display’s staffers and that this was contrary to the University’s Privacy Policy. Since I am aware that the University uses surveillance cameras, this incident caused me to wonder what rights students, staff and the public have with regard to video surveillance on campus, whether by the University or by others on campus.

Read the rest of this entry »

Case Considered: Van Der Smit v. Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission), 2009 ABQB 121

PDF Version: Post-Kapp Decision May Indicate the Way Discrimination will be Determined in Human Rights Cases

In the past few years, the application to human rights legislation of precedents established under Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms s. 15(1), which set out how a court is to determine whether a claimant has experienced discrimination, was an issue in many Canadian jurisdictions, including Alberta. The issue became more important, when in R. v. Kapp, 2008 SCC 41, the Supreme Court of Canada appeared to re-state (and perhaps even re-formulate) the test from Law v. Canada, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497, which had been the precedent courts relied on for several years. There are several posts written by ABlawg contributors about the Kapp decision and those which have followed. See, for example: Jonnette Watson Hamilton and Jennifer Koshan, The End of Law: A New Framework for Analyzing Section 15(1) Charter Challenges.

Read the rest of this entry »

Cases Considered: Brawn v. Profile Seismic Ltd., (June 16, 2009, Diane Colley-Urquhart Panel Chair)

PDF Version: Age Discrimination in Employment: What will Make the Grade?

Diane Colley-Urquhart, sitting as a Panel for the Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (”Commission”), recently dealt with a complaint involving age discrimination in employment. This case illustrates how it can be quite difficult to prove discrimination when you have conflicting witness testimony, and how human rights law does not address unpleasant workplace cultures, when it is not clear that the offensive behaviour is based on a ground covered under human rights legislation.

Read the rest of this entry »

Case considered: Edmonton Police Service v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2009 ABQB 268

PDF version: Queen’s Bench Follows Business Watch rather than Kellogg, Brown and Root Regarding Jurisdiction of Privacy Commissioner

In an earlier post on Kellogg, Brown and Root (”KBR“), 2007 ABQB 499, I noted the unfortunate impact on a complainant when, as provided in the Personal Information Protection Act, R.S.A., 2000, c. 6.5 (”PIPA“), the Privacy Commissioner failed to launch an Inquiry within 90 days, and the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench held that PIPA s. 50(5) was mandatory. Thus, the Privacy Commissioner lost jurisdiction. The matter was appealed, and Alberta Court of Appeal did not deal with the issue, as the complainant had died, and the appeal was declared moot (see 2008 ABCA 384).

The Edmonton Police Service (”EPS”) case seems to indicate that the KBR decision may be distinguished and confined to its specific facts.

Read the rest of this entry »

Case considered: Lockerbie & Hole Industrial Inc. v. Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission), 2009 ABQB 241, overturning Donald Luka v. Lockerbie & Hole Industrial Inc. and Syncrude Canada, Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission, February 15, 2008 (Beth Bryant)

PDF version: To Employ or Not to Employ: Is That the Question?

An appeal of a Human Rights Panel (”Panel”) decision brings to the fore an issue that has arisen in many human rights cases. When there is a complaint of discrimination in the area of employment under s. 7 of the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A 200, c. H-14 (”HRCMA“), who will be considered an “employer”? This is especially pertinent in the current marketplace in Alberta where workers are often contractors or sub-contractors.

Read the rest of this entry »

Legislation considered: Bill 44, Human Rights Citizenship and Multiculturalism Amendment Act; Amendment A1A; Amendment A1B

PDF version: Amendments to Bill 44 Worsen a Bad Bill

In a previous post, I discussed a number of concerns about the proposed amendments to Alberta’s Human Rights Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A. 2000 c. H-14 (”Act”). One of the proposed amendments in Bill 44, referred to as the parental opt-out provision, has been the subject of much criticism. See Janet Keeping and Sheila Pratt, for example.

Read the rest of this entry »

Case considered: Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission Panel) v. Tequila Bar & Grill Ltd., 2009 ABQB 226

PDF version: Costs Take Centre Stage in Human Rights Case

The issue of costs does not normally merit discussion in a blog. However, in the Tequila Bar & Grill case, the Respondent raises some interesting arguments about costs that speak to the multiple functions of the Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (”Commission”).

Read the rest of this entry »

Legislation Considered: Bill 44, Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Amendment Act

PDF version: Proposed Amendments to Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act Off the Mark

Over the past twenty years, Alberta’s human rights legislation has been examined and changes have been recommended on more than one occasion. In the early 1990s, Alberta initiated a review of the Individual’s Rights Protection Act (as it was then named) and accepted submissions from people across Alberta. The final report of the review, Equal in Dignity and Rights: A Review of Human Rights in Alberta by the Alberta Human Rights Review Panel (O’Neill Report) contained 75 recommendations for reform. Some of the recommendations were implemented in amendments to the legislation. For example, “family status” was added as a protected ground in 1996 and the protection from retaliation for making a complaint was broadened in 1996. But, many of the recommendations were never implemented.

Read the rest of this entry »

Case Considered: Workeneh v. 922591 Alberta Ltd., 2009 ABQB 191

PDF version: How does a complainant prove that he/she has experienced racial discrimination?

The Workeneh case draws attention to the challenges of proving that a complainant has been discriminated against contrary to the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. H-14 (”HRCMA“). It can be particularly difficult to prove that racial discrimination has occurred, particularly when there are other reasons given for the treatment such as poor job performance.

Read the rest of this entry »

Case Considered: United Association of Journeyman and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 488 v. Bantrel Constructors Co., 2009 ABCA 84

PDF Version: Employee Alcohol and Drug Testing Once Again At Issue

Alcohol and drug testing of employees is a tricky issue from a legal perspective. For example, in an earlier post, I commented on Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission) v. Kellogg Brown & Root (Canada) Company, 2007 ABCA 426, where in cases of pre-employment drug testing, there seem to be conflicting court decisions that make it challenging to implement effective policies. (Since the post was written, the Supreme Court of Canada denied the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission’s application for leave to appeal on May 29, 2008). What about the situation where an employer seeks to implement a new drug testing policy to apply to existing unionized employees as a condition of access to a construction work site?

Read the rest of this entry »