Author: Linda McKay-Panos Page 17 of 22

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.

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.

Age Discrimination in Employment: What will Make the Grade?

By Linda McKay-Panos

On July 24, 2009

In Human Rights

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.

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

By Linda McKay-Panos

On June 16, 2009

In Administrative Law, Privacy

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.

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

By Linda McKay-Panos

On June 2, 2009

In Human Rights, Labour/Employment

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.

Amendments to Bill 44 Worsen a Bad Bill

By Linda McKay-Panos

On May 29, 2009

In Human Rights

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.

Author: Linda McKay-Panos Page 17 of 22

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

Age Discrimination in Employment: What will Make the Grade?

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

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

Amendments to Bill 44 Worsen a Bad Bill