Human Rights – Page 19

Case Commented on: Wright v College and Association of Registered Nurses of Alberta (Appeals Committee), 2012 ABCA 267

In this recent case, the majority (Justice Frans Slatter, concurred with by Justice Keith Ritter) and the dissent (Justice Ronald Berger) of the Alberta Court of Appeal fundamentally disagreed on the approach to be taken when there are human rights principles at issue in professional discipline matters. Genevieve Wright and Mona Helmer were nurses who were disciplined by the College and Association of Registered Nurses of Alberta (“CARNA”) for stealing narcotics and for falsifying related records. Both argued that their addiction to narcotics amounted to a disability under the Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c A-25.5 (“AHRA”). Thus, they argued that their employer had a duty to accommodate such that a modified disciplinary procedure was required under the Health Professions Act, RSA 2000, c H-7 (“HPA”).

Walsh and Mobil Oil – The Long-Running Saga Continues

By Linda McKay-Panos

On October 10, 2012

In Human Rights, Labour/Employment

PDF version: Walsh and Mobil Oil – The Long-Running Saga Continues

Decision commented on: Walsh v Mobil Canada, 2012 ABQB 527

After several tribunal and court proceedings, taking place over the past 20+ years, Mobil was found to have discriminated against Delorie Walsh and to have retaliated against her for complaining by terminating her employment. There have been several blogs written about this case (see “Court of Appeal Rules in Walsh Case: End of a Seventeen Year Journey?”and “Justice Received After Nineteen Years Delay in Walsh Case: What’s to blame?”).

Peter Lougheed and the Constitution, Notwithstanding

By Jennifer Koshan

On September 24, 2012

In Constitutional, Human Rights

PDF version: Peter Lougheed and the Constitution, Notwithstanding

Commenting on: The legacy of section 33 of the Charter

I am not a conservative, as anyone who knows me or reads Rate My Professor is already aware. But notwithstanding my political stripes, I was a fan of Peter Lougheed. My kids were charmed when they heard him read Christmas stories at the Lougheed House many years ago, and my daughter and I once met him at an opera at the Banff Centre – again, we were charmed. More pertinent to the law, he was the premier who repealed Alberta’s sexual sterilization legislation (the Sexual Sterilization Repeal Act, 1972, SA 1972, c 87) and brought in our first human rights act (the Individual’s Rights Protection Act, SA 1972, c 2), showing a strong commitment to the protection of individual rights. But it is one of his contributions to constitutional law that I will comment on in this post.

Where does legitimate religious expression end and hate speech begin?

By Kathleen Mahoney

On April 29, 2012

In Human Rights

PDF Version: Where does legitimate religious expression end and hate speech begin?

Alan Hunsberger, a Wildrose candidate who ran for election for the provincial legislature in Alberta, believes the Edmonton Public School Board’s policy of adopting anti-bullying policies to protect gay and lesbian students is wrong. He says that to adopt such policies is “godless, wicked and profane.” He says that homosexuals ” will suffer the rest of eternity in a lake of fire, hell, a place of eternal suffering.” He went on to write that others shouldn’t accept homosexuals for the way they are because “accepting people the way they are is cruel and not loving.” For the full text of his statement see here.

Should we be concerned? Is this really a freedom of speech issue? Or is it something else?

The Safe Injection Site Precedent: Parliamentary Supremacy vs. Democratic Values?

By Kathleen Mahoney

On April 24, 2012

In Human Rights

Case Considered: Canada (A.G.) v PHS Community Services Society, 2011, SCC 44

PDF Version: The Safe Injection Site Precedent: Parliamentary Supremacy vs. Democratic Values?

The recent SCC ruling in Canada (A.G.) v PHS Community Services Society (Insite) caused quite a stir when the Supreme Court of Canada ordered the Minister of Health to exempt a supervised injection site and its clients from drug possession laws.

Some editorial writers and Internet bloggers immediately described the decision as “a new tool for activism” a threat to the “peace between judges and legislators” and as “a confrontation brewing between the Harper government and Canadian courts” on everything from prostitution laws to euthanasia (For example, see Kirk Makin, Landmark Insite Decision Threatens Peace Between Judges and Legislators, The Globe and Mail, October 17, 2011; Kevin l. Boonstra, Cardus, LexView 74.0 – Can Injecting Illegal Drugs Ever Be Safe?, October 26, 2011.).