Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Central Alberta Dairy Pool v Alberta (Human Rights Commission), [1990] 2 SCR 489, is a leading human rights law decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.The Court expanded on the concept of accommodation up to undue hardship first established in Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v Simpsons-Sears Ltd, [1985] 2 SCR 536 and provided a set of factors to consider when evaluating undue hardship.
The functions of the Commission are laid out in the Alberta Human Rights Act. [4] In particular, section 16(1) states that the function of the Commission is: [4] (a) to forward the principle that all persons are equal in dignity, rights and responsibilities without regard to race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, gender identity, gender expression, physical disability, mental disability, age ...
Dr. Darren Lund filed a complaint about Boissoin's remarks to the commission. Although a human rights panel found that the letter infringed the Alberta Human Rights Act, [41] the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench overturned the ruling on appeal. [42] The Alberta Court of Appeal confirmed the Queen's Bench decision. [43]
Alberta Human Rights Commission: human rights: The AHRC is an independent commission that fulfills its mandate of fostering equality and reducing discrimination through tribunals and court hearings, as well as through the resolution and settlement of complaints. Alberta Labour Relations Board: labour laws
British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v British Columbia Government Service Employees' Union [1999] 3 SCR 3, 1999 SCC 48 – called Meiorin for short – is a Supreme Court of Canada case that created a unified test to determine if a violation of human rights legislation can be justified as a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR).
Vriend v Alberta [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493 is an important Supreme Court of Canada case that determined that a legislative omission can be the subject of a Charter violation. The case involved a dismissal of a teacher because of his sexual orientation and was an issue of great controversy during that period.
2001 CanLII 8496 (CHRT) Ruling; Discrimination on the basis of transsexualism constitutes a violation of Section 5 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Correctional Services Canada could not provide a bona fide justification of these discriminatory practices. Synthia Kavanagh's complaints are sustained. Case opinions; Decision by: Anne Mactavish
Canada (AG) v Mossop, [1993] 1 SCR 554 was the first decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to consider equality rights for gays. The case is also significant as one of Justice L'Heureux-Dube's most famous dissents where she proposes an evolving model of the "family".