University of Calgary Faculty of Law ABLawg.ca logo over mountains

Category: Human Rights Page 29 of 32

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

By

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?

Read More

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

By

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.

Read More

Recent Developments in the Black Bear Crossing Dispute

By

On November 17, 2008

In Aboriginal, Constitutional, Human Rights, Supreme Court of Canada

Cases considered: Tsuu T’ina Nation v. Bearchief, 2008 CanLII 55966 (S.C.C.)
 

PDF Version:  Recent Developments in the Black Bear Crossing Dispute

As noted in my previous post on Tsuu T’ina Nation v. Bearchief, the Tsuu T’ina Nation was effectively prevented from enforcing an eviction notice against residents of Black Bear Crossing (BBC) whose band membership was disputed, until such time as the membership of the residents was resolved. The Tsuu T’ina’s application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and Justices Morris Fish and Marshall Rothstein on October 30, 2008 (with costs against the Tsuu T’ina Nation).

Read More

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

By

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.

Read More

The Limits of Limitations for Human Rights Complaints

By

On October 22, 2008

In Human Rights

Cases Considered: Ji v. Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission), 2008 ABQB 571

PDF Version:  The Limits of Limitations for Human Rights Complaints

A recent Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench case brings to the fore the issue of strict limitation provisions in human rights cases. The limitation issue applies both to making a complaint and to the strict procedural time rules imposed during the complaint process. These rules seem overly harsh in view of the fact that most complainants are not represented by lawyers and the requirements can be quite confusing and complex.

Read More

Page 29 of 32

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén