Human Rights – Page 30

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.

La Belle Province? Developments in Alberta Language Rights Cases

By Jennifer Koshan

On September 8, 2008

In Constitutional, Human Rights

Cases Considered: R. v. Caron, 2008 ABPC 232

Caron v. Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission), 2008 ABCA 272.

PDF Version: La Belle Province? Developments in Alberta Language Rights Cases

On August 18, 2008 the Alberta Provincial Court posted its long awaited decision in the case of Gilles Caron. Caron was charged under an Alberta regulation with making an unsafe left turn, and sought to defend on the basis of a violation of his language rights, arguing that Alberta legislation is invalid because it is not enacted in both English and French. His case was initially fought on the issue of whether he was entitled to an interim costs award to permit him to pursue his constitutional challenge in the absence of funding from the Court Challenges program (see my earlier posts on this issue: Special Enough? Interim Costs and Access to Justice and Stay Of Interim Funding Denied In Language Rights Case). In a 96 page decision written in French, Judge L.J. Wenden of the Alberta Provincial Court found in favour of Caron’s language rights claim and accordingly dismissed his traffic offence (2008 ABPC 232).

Court of Appeal Rules in Walsh Case: End of a Seventeen Year Journey?

By Linda McKay-Panos

On September 4, 2008

In Human Rights, Labour/Employment

Cases Considered: Walsh v. Mobil Oil Canada, 2008 ABCA 268

PDF Version: Court of Appeal Rules in Walsh Case: End of a Seventeen Year Journey?

People often cite the length of time it takes to resolve human rights complaints as a deterrent to making such complaints. Delorie Walsh’s case may be cited as an extreme example. And, if the respondents appeal the current decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, the case might not be over yet.

Racial Profiling–Identification or Discrimination?

By Linda McKay-Panos

On August 30, 2008

In Human Rights

Cases Considered: Coward v. Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission, Chief Commissioner) 2008 ABQB 455

PDF Version: Racial Profiling–Identification or Discrimination?

This case was an application for judicial review of a decision of the Chief Commissioner of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (“Commission”). It addresses some very interesting issues, including the jurisdiction of the Commission to deal with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter“) issues, and which police behaviour will amount to racial discrimination.

Human Rights Panel Faced with Mandatory Retirement (Again)

By Linda McKay-Panos

On June 30, 2008

In Human Rights

Cases Considered: Webber v. Canadian Forest Products Ltd. (Alta. H.R.P.; May 30, 2008) (Brenda F. Scragg, Panel Chair)

PDF Version: Human Rights Panel Faced with Mandatory Retirement (Again)

Although this case deals with a legal issue that is far from new, there are a couple of significant developments regarding mandatory retirement and discrimination. Mr. Webber had worked for Canadian Forest Products Ltd. (“Canfor”) in a mill for over 24 years before retiring on October 29, 2004 at age 65, because he was subject to a long-standing mandatory retirement policy. Not wanting to retire, he had requested but been denied an extension. Although Mr. Webber was a member of a union, he did not file a grievance, but instead, on the advice of his union, on October 18, 2004, filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (“Commission”) under s. 7(1)(a) of the Human Rights Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. H-14 (“HRCMA“) for discrimination in the area of employment on the ground of age. As the matter was not resolved at the Commission, the Chief Commissioner ordered a Human Rights Panel (“Panel”) to hear the matter.