Articles 2020

The Supreme Court of Canada recently held that Ontario public school boards are “inherently governmental” and thus subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”). As a result, the Court overturned an arbitrator’s decision regarding discipline imposed on two teachers because the arbitrator failed to conduct a Charter analysis. This case summary provides a brief overview and analysis of the decision, including the implications for school boards.

Bill 166, also called the Strengthening Accountability and Student Supports Act, 2024, proposes to amend the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Act to require every Ontario college and university to have a student mental health policy setting out what services, programs, policies and supports are available for student mental health, as well as policies and rules to address and combat racism and hate, including antisemitism, anti-Black racism, anti-Indigenous racism and Islamophobia.

On March 13, 2024, the Ontario Divisional Court released its long-awaited decision in London District Catholic School Board v. Weilgosh, 2023 ONSC 3857 (“Weilgosh”). The decision confirms that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the “Tribunal”) and labour arbitrators share concurrent jurisdiction over human rights complaints arising from a provincially regulated collective agreement.

The International Day of Persons with Disabilities serves as a potent reminder of disability inclusion every year, but workplace inclusion for people with disabilities remains as bleak as ever. Lorin MacDonald provides ten tips for disability allies to advance the agenda of workplace inclusion and accessibility.

Samantha Peters interviews Nikisha Thapar, a third-year law student at Western University Faculty of Law, about the OHRC's decision to recognize Caste-Based Discrimination.

Section Vice-Chair, Lorin MacDonald advocates for mandatory human rights education for the legal profession in Canadian Lawyer Magazine. Read an excerpt here.

Whether to participate in MAID is a profound and complex ethical question—a question on which the B.C. Supreme Court recognized that “thoughtful and well-motivated people can and have come to different conclusions.” In a country that cherishes diversity and dignity for all, we must support diverse communities of care and, in turn, better options and outcomes for all patients - many of whom seek, and deserve better access to, medical assistance in living.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently released Mathur v. Ontario, a landmark climate litigation decision. The seven applicants (between the ages of 15 and 27), sought declarations of constitutional invalidity related to Ontario’s legislated greenhouse gas emissions reduction target. The court expressed sympathy for the applicants’ environmental concerns but concluded that based on “the current state of the law” it could not find Charter violations in the circumstances before it.

There is a proliferation of news reports of people with disabilities considering medical assistance in dying (MAiD). As a human rights lawyer, a disability advocate, and a woman born with a disability, I find these trends troubling. I believe MAiD is the outcome of Hobson’s choice, which refers to the illusion that multiple options are available. In a “take it or leave it” scenario, “leaving it” is no longer tenable for many Canadians with disabilities, given today’s climate.