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.
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”).
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.
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.
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?
Legislation Considered: Film and Video Classification Act, S.A. 2008 c. F-11.5
PDF Version: New Legislation on Film and Video Classification Garners Little Attention
Without much attention or fanfare, the Film and Video Classification Act (“FVCA“), S.A. 2008 c. F-11.5 received royal assent on December 2, 2008. It is awaiting proclamation. It is perhaps ironic that the media did not pay much attention to legislation that will certainly affect some of them. It is clear that the legislation that the FVCA will replace is sorely out of date and needs to be brought into the 21st century (e.g., the Amusements Act, R.S.A. 2000, c.A-40, referred to “moving picture machines” and “travelling picture shows”). However, some of the amendments seem to create potential difficulties in implementation. Three aspects of the new legislation merit discussion.
Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén
