Articles 2019

The Northern Regional Health Authority has applied for leave to appeal the decision of the Manitoba Court of Appeal in Northern Regional Health Authority v. Manitoba Human Rights Commission et. al., 2017 MBCA 98 to the Supreme Court of Canada . The Manitoba Human Rights Commission is not opposing the application, instead favouring that the appeal be heard and clarification be sought in the matter of the jurisdiction of human rights tribunals vis-à-vis exclusive arbitral jurisdiction.

A recent case heard by the Supreme Court of Canada, Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Attorney General of Canada, may have significant implications for individuals who rely on federal government benefits. The case involves a challenge to the registration provision of the federal Indian Act.

The 16th Annual Charter of Rights and Freedoms Conference took place on October 2, 2017 at the OBA’s offices in Toronto. This article summarizes the Conference’s four panels, as well as the Year in Review presentation.

Disqualifying otherwise eligible recipients from a public benefit because of their religious beliefs is unacceptable in a liberal democracy. Yet that is the effect of two recent government initiatives in Canada.

Despite years of law reform, human rights advancements, and progression of women in the workplace, discrimination against pregnant employees and workers is still a reality for many women in Ontario, and Canada.

In Gehl v Canada (2017), the concurring reasons of Justices Lauwers and Miller include a sustained criticism of the concept and application of Charter values in judicial reasoning. We reply to the concurring judgment’s critique of Charter values.

Over the past few years, a troubling trend has emerged in the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario’s case law relating to the naming and removal of individual respondents. In an effort to counter the inappropriate naming of individual respondents, the Tribunal's jurisprudence now encroaches into the territory of appropriately named individual respondents.

In Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corp., the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld a decision of the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal (Tribunal) which concluded that an employee who had a cocaine addiction was not dismissed because of that addiction; rather, he was dismissed for breaching his employer’s Alcohol, Illegal Drugs & Medical Policy (Policy). No prima facie discrimination was found and the decision of the Tribunal dismissing the employee’s complaint was therefore reasonable.

Despite the Ontario Court of Appeal’s guidance in its seminal ruling on racial profiling in R v. Brown fourteen years ago, this continues to be a pervasive and widespread issue. This was highlighted in a recent joint program held by the OBA Criminal Justice and Constitutional, Civil Liberties, and Human Rights Law Sections.

In February, 2017, the plaintiffs’ months-long trial was set to begin before the Honourable Justice Lederer. Following a recently announced settlement, lawyer Phil Tunley provides insights about trial preparation, client management and advancing Charter claims in the context of some of the worst human rights abuses ever litigated in Canada.