Vriend V. Alberta Case Study

The move towards an intersectional approach is evident in several Supreme Court rulings. “Some courts and tribunals have started to acknowledge the need to make special provision for discrimination based on multiple grounds and to recognize the social, economic and historical context in which it takes place” (Ontario Human Rights Commission). Although still in its infancy the court’s understanding of the intersectional approach has provided the Supreme Court of Canada to include comments on multiple grounds of discrimination and intersecting grounds. The Mossop case SCR 554 was the first decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to consider equality rights for gays. Madam Justice L’Heureux-Dubé remarked, “it is increasingly recognized that categories

The Whatcott’s case against Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) is a one of the most recent case that emphasized on the issue of “hate speech” and “fundamental freedoms” listed in section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In Whatcott’s case, four complaints were filed with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission about the four flyers published and distributed by William Whatcott. In the four flyers, William Whatcott expressed and emphasized strongly on religious convictions against homosexuals. He consistently campaigned against homosexuality, Islam and abortion in Saskatchewan and unfortunately, Whatcott included phrases such as “Keep Homosexuality out of Saskatoon’s Public Schools!” and “Sodomites in our Public Schools”(Criminal case) which can be seen as the hate speech in the flyers.

Robin Blencoe was a minister of the British Columbia government who was accused of sexually harassing his assistant, Fran Yanor in March 1995. In the Blencoe v British Columbia (Human Rights Commission case) h became the respondent in the case. Once he was accused, Blencoe stepped down from his position and a month later he was removed from his cabinet by the premier. Along with this, he was dismissed from the NDP caucus. Four to five months later, Blencoe was yet again faced with two complaints of “discrimination conduct in the form of sexual harassment” (Westcoastleaf, page.2) by two other women who were employees of Blencoe named Andrea Willis and Irene Schell. There were various incidents that took place in between March 1993 and March

The Manitoba Act said that Manitoba could send in 4 member to the House Of Commons and 2 members into the Senate. It also declared that 560 000 hectares of land would be kept for the Metis families and that of people could use French or English in schools and government.

The Supreme Court case Chaoulli v. Quebec provides significant evidence regarding the courts role in the post-Charter era. The claimants, George Zeliotis, a 61-year old man who had waited a year to have hip surgery, and Dr. Jacques Chaoulli, a doctor who wanted a license to operate an independent private hospital, brought the case hoping that it would result in private health insurance being allowed for procedures covered under the public health plan, not just for procedures not covered by the plan (Bateman et al. 2008, 325). At the time, Quebec, under section 11 of the Hospital Insurance Act and section 15 of the Health Insurance Act, prohibited private health insurance to protect the integrity of Medicare (Chaoulli v. Quebec 2005, para. 2). The case was two decades after the entrenchment of the Charter of

Conviction for being a homosexual in Ukraine does not render our client ineligible for refugee claim in Canada

While Pierre was Justice Minister under Pearson he had reformed the criminal codes of Canada -Abortion, Divorce laws, Homosexuality. Quoting Trudeau himself he said “The state had no business in the bedrooms of others.”

In concurrence with King, requiring professors in Christian Charter schools to refrain from wearing non-Christian articles of faith is not a reasonable infringement of Section 2(a) of the Charter. The Oakes test was conducted to deduce that the Charter infringement is not justifiable in a free and democratic society. The first step of the Oakes test is to determine if the infringement is “prescribed by law”. A common law rule or regulation, in addition to legislation can constitute a limit “prescribed by law” (Sharpe & Roach, 2013, p66).

On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court removed the ban on same-sex marriage nationwide. On July 15, 2015, Kenneth Jost published an article named “Will there be more gains after marriage ruling?” In this article, Jost discusses the viewpoints of the general public and argues that there may still be a struggle to gain full rights and respect for lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. The article covers the reaction of the public on June 26, along with politicians stand-points on the subject, and the Caitlyn Jenner controversy. Jost’s main argument is that LGBT people are not being protected by the government, even though they have gained the right to marry.

You have asked me to summarize the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Doré v Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12, SCR 395 and analyze whether the Law society is likely to sanction Evan Frank. Although the Rules of Professional Conduct place limitations on certain conduct to ensure professionalism, the expressive rights of lawyers must be given due respect and the likelihood of Mr. Frank’s sanction will depend on a fair balance of “expressive value” of the content in the letter, with the public’s expectation of professionalism.

The accused, Erin Lee MacDonald was charged for handling a firearm in a careless manner without taking erasable precautions for the safety of others and for possessing a loaded restricted firearm without having an authorization license stating he could do so. The case was on appeal from the Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia and was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2014. The judgment of McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Fish and Abella JJ. was delivered by LeBel J.

She comments that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides not only formative but substantial protection from inequalities. Unlike the U.S., Mackinnon comments that the Canadian system seeks to alter the poor treatment of disadvantaged groups and amend their status.[6] The Court utilized this approach in the case of R v. Butler where it recognized that the “humiliation, degradation, and subordination of women – was harm to society as a whole” as it led to an inequality.[7] In other words, the court recognized the social and communal harm imposed by pornography, that is to say it recognized the “context” under which the pornography occurred. Recognizing not only the harm from pornography but more importantly the inequality that it perpetuates, the Canadian courts ruled in an opposite manner to their U.S counterparts.

In common law, judges interpret the law and judge apply it based on precedent from previous cases; compared to civil law which focuses on written legislature. In Canada, judges are given the chance to be activists. If a judge believes a citizen’s rights, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, are being violated, they are given the power to rule against the unconstitutional law made by the elected branches of government; this concept is referred to as judicial activism (Hausegger, Hennigar, & Riddell, 2015, p. 123). Judicial activism ensures the individual rights of each person are upheld, but the concept is controversial. Judicial activism is problematic because it awards an authoritarian level of power to unelected judges, which goes against Canada’s democratic ideology where elected officials decide and vote on the laws (Cameron, 2009, p. 27). I argue that judicial activism should not be a part of Canada’s judicial process because it gives too much power to the courts and disrupts the democratic process of

For Australian law to be effective it must be dynamic so it can reflect changing societal views, which law reform can help attain. A significant area of recent social change is the acceptance of same-sex relationships in Australian society. To mirror this, current law reforms have been somewhat effective in achieving just outcomes regarding the recognition of same-sex relationships in Commonwealth law. The combination of official recognition of same-sex relationships to an extent, attempts at removing discrimination in legislation, and the delay of justice denotes this. Considering the achievement of justice and the protection of individual’s rights, it is evident that law reform has significantly improved recognition of same-sex relationships, but there are more essential responses that need to be enacted.

​Canada is often seen as a leader in the gay rights movement and it has a long history of providing rights to those that identify as homosexual (BC Teachers’ Federation, 2016; Cotler, 2015). As far back as 1969, Prime Minister Trudeau passed Bill C-150 which amended the Criminal Code to decriminalize “gross indecency” and “buggery”; if committed between two consenting adults if they are over 21 (BC Teachers’ Federation, 2016). The Code was further amended to drop the age of consent for anal sex from 18 and 14 for other sexual activity and it was recognized that a higher age for consent of anal sex was unconstitutional (BC Teachers’ Federation, 2016). Since then there have been many changes to the political and social system in Canada to be able to improve the rights not only individuals whom are part of the LGBTQ community, but also for those whom are in same sex relationships (BC Teachers’ Federation, 2016). As of 2005, same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada; however, there is still debate of whether or not same-sex legalization has legitimized same-sex partnerships within society (Colter, 2015). Many cases that have come before the court regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriages have argued that the actions of society are a direct violation of people’s s.15 rights in the Constitution; which allows for every person to be treated equally and bear the freedom of religion (Supreme Court Judgements, 2004). It will be argued that Canada has created equal rights for