Human Rights – Page 29

Two recent Alberta decisions (one from the Court of Queen’s Bench and one from the Court of Appeal) illustrate the significance of the process followed by decision-makers when analyzing whether, under the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. H-14 (“HRCMA“), a person has been discriminated against, and, if so, whether the employer has accommodated the person to the point of undue hardship. As noted by Madam Justice Eidsvik in Baum v. Calgary (City), 2008 ABQB 791 (“Baum“): “Accordingly, the law on the duty to accommodate has become quite well developed however, the initial test [see #1 below] has been sparsely discussed until recently” (at para. 29). These two cases illustrate this observation.

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

By Linda McKay-Panos

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?

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

By Linda McKay-Panos

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.

Recent Developments in the Black Bear Crossing Dispute

By Jennifer Koshan

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).

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

By Linda McKay-Panos

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.

Category: Human Rights Page 29 of 33

Disability Discrimination in the Workplace

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

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

Recent Developments in the Black Bear Crossing Dispute

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