Articles

The HRT addresses the application of the Code to short-term absences from employment to address childcare needs, affirming that such absences may be protected under the ground of family status.

“Carding” or “street checks” refers to the police practice of stopping individuals on the street and entering their personal information into a database. The OBA’s CCLHR and the Child & Youth Law Sections held a joint program as part of Institute 2016. “Constitutional and Human Rights of Young People: Policing & Public Space” explored the experiences and rights implications of racialized and homeless youth who navigate public space under increased police surveillance.

In the close to two years since the release of Johnstone v. Attorney General of Canada (2014 FCA 110), there have now been a number of decisions, which have further clarified issues such as the scope of family status, the legal test for establishing prima facie discrimination on the basis of family status, and the evidentiary burden of potential claimants. This article surveys a few notable decisions which should be considered by human rights practitioners and interested observers.

Geri Sanson outlines the biggest human rights cases of note in 2014-2015.

Why are applicants overlooking the possible remedy of prospective future lost wages? This article takes a look at recent HRTO decisions that shed some light on the availability - or lack thereof - of this potentially useful remedial device for discrimination cases.

A discussion of the new emerging test for family status discrimination - and the related potential for damages - in Ontario.

Twenty-one years after Rodriguez v. British Columbia (AG), the Supreme Court revisited the issue in Carter v. Canada (AG). Henri briefly discusses the Court’s conclusions with respect to s. 7 and s. 1 of the Charter, and the remedy.

Against the very recent debates in global media on how far freedom of speech should be protected, this article takes a look at this right in a Canadian context. Using Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v Whatcott, the author reveals the interesting interplay fundamental freedom of speech and the limitations posed on this freedom by hate speech legislation.

This article takes a look at the scope and nature of current laws on intervening as a friend of the Court in light of the Trinity Western University v Law Society of Upper Canada proceedings.