Category Archives: Human Rights

Human Rights Panel Faced with Mandatory Retirement (Again)

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.

Continue reading →

Remedy Decision Released in the Lund v. Boissoin Case

Cases Considered: Darren E. Lund v. Stephen Boissoin and the Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. (May 30, 2008 Lori G. Andreachuck, Q.C. Panel Chair)

PDF Version: Remedy Decision Released in the Lund v. Boissoin Case

In an earlier decision released on November 30, 2007, which dealt with a complaint about a hateful message against the gay community published in a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate, online, the Alberta Human Rights Panel (“Panel”) found that Stephen Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. had contravened s. 3 of the Alberta Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act (“HRCMA“), R.S.A. 2000, c. H-14. The Panel released its decision on the remedy on May 30, 2008. The original case, together with a few recent cases involving similar provisions in other provinces’ and the federal government’s human rights legislation, has spawned outcry across Canada about limiting the powers of human rights commissions or even doing away with commissions altogether. The remedy ordered in this case has also sparked renewed criticism of the HRCMA (see for example: “Keep Your Promise, Premier: Stand up for freedom of speech” Calgary Herald 06 June 2008 online).

Continue reading →

Leave to appeal refused by Supreme Court in Drug Testing Case

Cases Considered: Director of the Alberta Human Rights and Citzenship Commission, et al. v. Kellogg Brown & Root (Canada) Company, 2007 ABCA 426

In the May 29, 2008 version of his S.C.C. L@wletter Eugene Meehan reports that the Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed the application of the Director of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission for leave to appeal in the case of Kellogg Brown & Root (Canada) Company (at the time of writing the SCC’s decision on leave to appeal is not yet available on its website). For posts on the Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision in this case, see Linda McKay Panos, “Court of Appeal Sends Court of Queen’s Bench Decision to Rehab” and David Corry, “Drug Testing: A Wake-up Call to the Courts”. Linda and David disagreed about the correctness of the Alberta Court of Appeal’s approach, which overturned the decision of Madam Justice Sheilah Martin and upheld the position of the employer. It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court will not take advantage of the opportunity to clarify the law in this area. This leaves it uncertain for employers, employees and human rights tribunals whether perceived addiction to alcohol and drugs is covered by human rights legislation, and in what circumstances employers are entitled to implement drug and alcohol testing policies without running afoul of human rights legislation.

Vriend Ten Years Later

By: Linda McKay-Panos

PDF Version: Vriend Ten Years Later

Case Commented On: Vriend v Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493

April 2, 2008 marked the 10th anniversary of the release of the SCC decision in Vriend v Alberta. This decision was remarkable in many ways. First, there were no less than 17 intervenors by the time the case reached the SCC. Our affiliated agency, the Alberta Civil Liberties Association, was one of those intervenors. The case was significant because of the remedy that was ordered by the SCC and because of the analysis that the SCC undertook in determining that sexual orientation should be included as a protected ground in Alberta’s Individual’s Rights Protection Act (“IRPA”, now called the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act (“HRCMA”), R.S.A. 2000, c. H-14). It is also interesting to examine what has happened in the area of sexual orientation and human rights since this noteworthy case.

Continue reading →

Ombudsman May Review and Make Recommendations Regarding Decisions of Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights and Citizenship Commission

Cases Considered: Alberta (Ombudsman) v. Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission), 2008 ABQB 168

PDF Version: Ombudsman May Review and Make Recommendations Regarding Decisions of Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights and Citizenship Commission

This case, although somewhat technical, is interesting from the perspective of a person who would like the Chief Commissioner of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (“Commission”) to reconsider a decision. Though such cases may be brought to the Court of Queen’s Bench, people often choose not to take that route because the court is limited judicial review – i.e. it will only look at whether the Chief Commissioner (or administrative official in other cases) exercised his or her power in an arbitrary, discriminatory or otherwise unreasonable way when making the decision. Courts do not usually review the evidence in the case, or the decision itself, but instead focus on the process that was followed in arriving at a decision.

Continue reading →