Author: Linda McKay-Panos Page 20 of 23

Linda McKay-Panos is the Executive Director of the Alberta Civil
Liberties Research Centre. She taught Language Arts and Social Studies with the Calgary Board of Education for 7 years before returning to university to obtain a Law Degree. She practiced law for a time, before joining the Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre in 1992 as a Research Associate. Linda is a sessional instructor in the Faculties of Communication and Culture and Law at the University of Calgary. Linda received her Bachelor of Education, Bachelor of Laws and Master of Laws degrees from the University of Calgary. Linda is the President of the Alberta Association for Multicultural Education and the Past President of the Public Legal Education Network of Alberta. Linda is the author of several publications dealing with civil liberties, access to information, human rights, discrimination, equality and related topics. Linda received the 2001 Suzanne Mah Award and an Alberta Centennial Medal in 2005 for her work in human rights in Alberta.

Considered: Protection of Children Abusing Drugs Act, S.A. 2005, c. P-27.5;
Protection of Sexually Exploited Children Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. P-30.3PDF Version: Using the Coercive Power of the State to Deal with Child Prostitution and Drug Abuse

Canada’s laws dealing with problems experienced by children and youth seem to reflect a tension in philosophy between protecting children, and recognizing them as rights-holders who will soon be fully participating members of our society. This post seeks to set out the general procedures provided in these laws and to examine whether these laws actually are successful in using a protectionist coercive model to deal with two serious problems: prostitution and drug abuse by children and youth.

Disability Discrimination in the Workplace

By Linda McKay-Panos

On January 28, 2009

In Human Rights, Labour/Employment

Cases Considered: Brewer v. Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP, 2008 ABCA 435;
Baum v. Calgary (City), 2008 ABQB 791

PDF Version: Disability Discrimination in the Workplace

Two recent Alberta decisions (one from the Court of Queen’s Bench and one from the Court of Appeal) illustrate the significance of the process followed by decision-makers when analyzing whether, under the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. H-14 (“HRCMA“), a person has been discriminated against, and, if so, whether the employer has accommodated the person to the point of undue hardship. As noted by Madam Justice Eidsvik in Baum v. Calgary (City), 2008 ABQB 791 (“Baum“): “Accordingly, the law on the duty to accommodate has become quite well developed however, the initial test [see #1 below] has been sparsely discussed until recently” (at para. 29). These two cases illustrate this observation.

What happens to our “day in court” when someone else drops the ball?

By Linda McKay-Panos

On December 17, 2008

In Human Rights, Privacy

Cases considered: Kellogg Brown and Root Canada v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2008 ABCA 384, affirming Kellogg Brown and Root Canada v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2007 ABQB 499.

PDF Version: What happens to our “day in court” when someone else drops the ball?

This is a privacy case involving Kellogg Brown and Root’s (“KBR”) drug testing policy. (For earlier posts involving a human rights complaint against this company’s drug testing policy, in which the S.C.C. denied leave to appeal; see: https://ablawg.ca/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/lmp_chiasson_jan2008.pdf and https://ablawg.ca/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/dc_chiasson_march10.pdf). The case is relatively straightforward, but it does raise an interesting access to justice issue: What happens when the privacy commissioner fails to complete an inquiry on a complaint within the legislated time limit?

The End (Beginning?) of a Long Journey: Disability and Air Travel

By Linda McKay-Panos

On December 9, 2008

In Human Rights

Cases considered: McKay-Panos v. Air Canada, Decision No. 519-AT-A-2008 (Canadian Transportation Agency)

PDF Version: The End (Beginning?) of a Long Journey: Disability and Air Travel

Sometimes it takes a very long time (eleven years) to receive a legal remedy, but my case illustrates tenacity can be beneficial. The situation in which I found myself, although very personal, resulted in setting a legal precedent and hopefully in helping to protect the dignity and humanity of many disabled air travelers.

Mandatory Retirement and Wrongful Dismissal: An Age Old Question of Compensation for Discrimination

By Linda McKay-Panos

On November 2, 2008

In Human Rights, Labour/Employment

Cases Considered: Magnan v. Brandt Tractor Ltd., 2008 ABCA 345

PDF Version: Mandatory Retirement and Wrongful Dismissal: An Age Old Question of Compensation for Discrimination

It has long been a legal principle in Canada that there is no recognized tort of discrimination; people should be pursuing remedies for discrimination from human rights tribunals: Board of Governors of Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology v. Bhadauria, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 181. This basic principle is supported by another principle: there is no recognized cause of action for breach of a statute, especially in negligence: Canada v. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 205. These principles were considered earlier this year in Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays, 2008 SCC 39, where the Supreme Court held that breach of a human rights code does not amount to an independent actionable wrong. However, a recent decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal confirms that these legal principles can be blurred when it comes to remedying wrongful dismissal that contains an element of discrimination.