Category Archives: Human Rights

Update in the Area of Family Status Discrimination

PDF version: Update in the Area of Family Status Discrimination

Case considered: Canadian National Railway v Denise Seeley and Canadian Human Rights Commission, 2013 FC 117.

In 2010, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal released three cases involving Alberta women who alleged they were being discriminated against on the basis of family status. In a previous post I wrote on the outcome (see “Accommodation for Family Status Required by Federal Human Rights Tribunal for Three Alberta Women” December 22, 2010 here) in which CNR was required to accommodate parental responsibilities of all three women. Canadian National Railway (CNR) applied for judicial review on the case of Denise Seeley. The decision of Justice Mandamin of the Federal Court presents an attempt to reconcile two lines of decisions that addressed what “family status” discrimination entails. On a larger scale, this case is one of several in which gender and family status discrimination are argued to be result of social construct or personal choice rather than the operation of law or the result of discrimination in an activity that is covered by human rights legislation (e.g., employment, tenancy, services, accommodation and publications).

Continue reading →

The Harm of Hate Speech: Are Media Responses Knee Jerk, Impulsive and Thoughtless?

PDF version: The Harm of Hate Speech: Are Media Responses Knee Jerk, Impulsive and Thoughtless?

Case commented on: Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11 (CanLii).

It is difficult to find balanced or thoughtful responses from the media on the subject of hate speech harms or hate speech laws. Oxford Professor Jeremy Waldron, in his book, The Harm in Hate Speech writes, “The philosophical arguments about hate speech are knee-jerk, impulsive and thoughtless.” This article argues that media responses to hate speech are likewise.

Continue reading →

Condominiums, Caregivers and Human Rights

PDF version: Condominiums, Caregivers and Human Rights

Case commented on: Condominium Plan No 9910225 v Davis, 2013 ABQB 49.

Anyone who has seen the film Amour knows that caring for an ill and elderly loved one can be an impossibly demanding task, both physically and emotionally. Many families turn to live-in caregivers in these circumstances. When those being cared for live in a condominium, and the condominium’s bylaws purport to restrict the use of live-in caregivers, what legal avenues are open to challenge the bylaws, or decisions made on the basis of the bylaws? This scenario arose in Condominium Plan No. 9910225 v Davis. Justice R. G. Stevens dealt with the issue as one of interpretation of the bylaws, but also suggested that human rights legislation was not an option in this type of case. I will argue in this post that human rights legislation does apply in the context of condominiums, and provides an important avenue of redress.

Continue reading →

The Justice Minister’s Take on Current Human Rights and Civil Liberties Issues in Alberta

PDF version: The Justice Minister’s Take on Current Human Rights and Civil Liberties Issues in Alberta

On January 25, 2013, Alberta Justice Minister Jonathan Denis spoke to a crowd of about 50 people gathered by the Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership and the Rocky Mountain Civil Liberties Association. The audience included lawyers, educators, government folks, NGO representatives, and advocates for human rights and civil liberties. Minister Denis delivered remarks on current human rights and civil liberties issues in the province and also took questions from the audience. His remarks and the Q + A covered issues concerning access to justice, the government’s position on the fate of sections 3 and 11.1 of the Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c A-25.5 (AHRA), Alberta’s new drinking and driving law, and peaceful protests, all of which will be explored in this post.

Continue reading →

When does aggressive panhandling become robbery?

PDF version: When does aggressive panhandling become robbery?

Case commented on: R v Ajang, 2012 ABCA 364.

 This case addresses the relationship between members of society who are homeless or poor, and those who are uncomfortable and/or threatened by homeless or poor people, when they are asking for money. Mr. Ajang was charged with robbery under section 343(c) of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985 c C-46, which states that everyone commits robbery who assaults a person with intent to steal. The Trial Judge (Judge P.M. McIlhargey) found Ajang guilty of assault, but acquitted him of robbery. The Crown appealed this acquittal and the matter was heard by Justices Connie Hunt, Patricia Rowbotham and Brian O’Ferrall. The Court of Appeal overturned the acquittal and found that there was sufficient evidence of an intent to steal to support a conviction for robbery.

Continue reading →