Category: Human Rights Page 31 of 32

The Alberta Human Rights Panel (“Panel”) recently joined human rights commissions in other provinces in addressing an all too common complaint—racial discrimination by a popular restaurant or bar. Mr. Jaspal Randhawa complained when he was denied entry into Calgary’s Tequila Bar and Grill Ltd. (“Tequila”) on July 9, 2004. Tequila’s manager, Mr. Harry Dimitriadis, was the respondent. Mr. Randhawa complained that he was denied goods, services and accommodation on the grounds of ancestry, race and religious beliefs, contrary to s.4 of the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act (“HRCMA”), R.S.A. 2000, c. H-14.

Employment and Disability: Some of the Challenges

By Linda McKay-Panos

On March 21, 2008

In Human Rights, Labour/Employment

Cases Considered: United Nurses of Alberta, Local 33 v. Capital Health Authority (Royal Alexandra), 2008 ABQB 126

PDF Version: Employment and Disability: Some of the Challenges

The recent decision of Justice D.A. Sulyma in United Nurses of Alberta, Local 33 v. Capital Health Authority (Royal Alexandra) provides insight into the challenges faced by both an employer and an employee in accommodating a disability in the workplace. The employer seeks information about the disability and how it should be accommodated, while the employee seeks to protect his or her privacy, in addition to an accommodation of the disability. The court must sort these issues out while also determining whether the employee has a disability.

Drug Testing: A Wake-up Call to the Courts

By David Corry

On March 13, 2008

In Human Rights, Labour/Employment

Cases Considered: Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission) v. Kellogg Brown & Root (Canada) Company, 2007 ABCA 426

PDF Version: Drug Testing: A Wake-up Call to the Courts

Does it take the Hinton train disaster, the sinking of the Exxon Valdez and the sinking of the Queen of the North to send human rights commissions and the courts a wake-up call? In all of these tragedies, the crews responsible were under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Yet, until the Alberta Court of Appeal decision in Kellogg, Brown & Root, the courts had elevated casual drug users to a protected minority group under the guise of human rights legislation.

Canada Safeway’s Charter Right to Freedom of Expression Not Violated by Privacy Legislation When it Reported Co-op Employee’s Unique Shopping Methods

By Linda McKay-Panos

On February 20, 2008

In Constitutional, Human Rights

Cases Considered: Canada Safeway Limited v. Shineton, 2007 ABQB 773

PDF Version: Canada Safeway’s Charter Right to Freedom of Expression Not Violated by Privacy Legislation When it Reported Co-op Employee’s Unique Shopping Methods

In a judicial review of a decision of Alberta’s Privacy Commissioner, Canada Safeway put forward a very interesting (yet ultimately unsuccessful) argument as a defence to a complaint that it breached a person’s privacy; Safeway argued that s. 7 (1)(d) of the Personal Information Protection Act (“PIPA”), S.A. 2003, c. P-6.5 violated its right to freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”) s. 2(b).

Court of Appeal Sends Court of Queen’s Bench Decision to Rehab

By Linda McKay-Panos

On January 12, 2008

In Human Rights, Labour/Employment

Cases Considered: Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission) v. Kellogg Brown & Root (Canada) Company, 2007 ABCA 426, overruling Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission) v. Kellogg Brown & Root (Canada) Company, 2006 ABQB 302, which overruled John Chiasson v. Kellogg, Brown & Root (Canada) Company (Halliburton Group Canada Inc.) (February 14, 15, 16 and March 1, 2005; Colonel (Ret’d) Delano W. Tolley, Panel Chair)

PDF Version: Court of Appeal Sends Court of Queen’s Bench Decision to Rehab

In December 2007, the Court of Appeal of Alberta overturned a detailed Court of Queen’s Bench decision on pre-employment drug testing. The case originated in the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (“AHRCC”). Mr. Chaisson, the complainant, was offered a position as a receiving inspector with Kellogg Brown & Root (“KBR”) ’s oil sands project, but was required to undergo a pre-employment medical and drug test, as a condition of his employment. Two weeks after commencing employment, the complainant’s results came back, indicating that he had tested positive for the presence of marijuana. Consequently, the complainant was terminated. The AHRCC’s Human Rights Panel dismissed Chaisson’s complaint on the basis that there was no evidence that the complainant suffered from a real or perceived disability, as he was only a recreational drug user, and thus was unable to substantiate a case of prima facie discrimination on the basis of physical disability. The Panel held that drug impairment of any kind would impact the complainant’s performance, and as such the pre-employment drug test was a reasonable requirement for the position for which the complainant was applying.

Category: Human Rights Page 31 of 32

Calgary Bar Cannot Discriminate on the Basis of Race or Religion

Employment and Disability: Some of the Challenges

Drug Testing: A Wake-up Call to the Courts

Canada Safeway’s Charter Right to Freedom of Expression Not Violated by Privacy Legislation When it Reported Co-op Employee’s Unique Shopping Methods

Court of Appeal Sends Court of Queen’s Bench Decision to Rehab