Articles

This program features an update on service-based applications to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, including emerging trends and key considerations when bringing or defending a service-based claim, followed by three panels exploring challenging and developing areas of service-based human rights applications.

In 2008, awards for general damages for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect became fully uncapped in Ontario. At the time, many human rights lawyers speculated that these changes could lead to a significant increase in awards by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. Recent case law both in Ontario and elsewhere in the country has caused some to wonder whether general damages awards might be trending upwards.

Overview and Commentary of the Berge decision, in which the Ontario Divisional Court refused to accept an audiologist's argument that a statutory restriction on her use of the title "Doctor" infringed her rights under s. 2(b) of the Charter.

An overview and commentary on how the Ontario and BC Courts of Appeal reached opposite results when assessing the impact of TWU's quest for accreditation on Charter values under the Doré framework.

Over past months, the appellate courts of Ontario, Nova Scotia, and British Columbia have weighed in on their respective provincial law societies’ decisions to deny approval or accreditation to graduates of the proposed law school at Trinity Western University on the basis of its requirement that students sign a Community Covenant that forbids sexual intimacy, except between married heterosexual couples.

The intersection between Employment and Human Rights law has dynamically evolved to respond to the new challenge of gender-based discrimination arising from workplace dress codes.

On October 6, 2016, lawyers from across Ontario gathered in Toronto to discuss significant updates in constitutional litigation. The day consisted of presentations, panels, and a fireside chat between distinguished scholars. Ranjan Agarwal and Ewa Krajewska chaired the program.

In Morasse v Nadeau Dubois, the majority of a divided Supreme Court of Canada upheld the Quebec Court of Appeal’s acquittal of the respondent, Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois. Nadeau-Dubois, the spokesperson for the prominent Quebec student group CLASSE, had been found guilty of contempt of court under article 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure for comments he made during a live television interview at the height of Quebec’s 2012 “maple spring” protests.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario recently issued a significant decision with respect to family status discrimination. In Misetich v Value Village Stores Inc., the Tribunal indicated its intention to depart from the test for family status discrimination outlined in Canada (Attorney General) v Johnstone and Canadian National Railway v Seeley.

In Schmidt, a former federal government lawyer argued unsuccessfully for greater disclosure of internal Charter risk analyses of draft bills. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which intervened in support of Mr. Schmidt, recently recommended that the federal Cabinet be forced to share Charter advice with Parliament and the public. Heather MacIvor argues that this recommendation risks undermining the separation of powers, solicitor-client privilege and Cabinet confidentiality.