Search

The article discusses affirmative action programs in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which allows governments to ameliorate historical disadvantage of particular minority groups in Canada. It explores how ameliorative programs gained a prominent place in case law, citing various examples of cases. The difference in the way that ameliorative programs are instituted in human rights laws is examined.

The article presents the author's insights on the issue involving pregnancy discrimination in Canada. Topics discussed include the protection provided in the human rights law across the country for the discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, the ruling given by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) concerning pregnancy discrimination, and the amendment in the federal human rights legislation after the ruling of the SCC.

The article discusses the legal principle of the human rights law in Canada. It notes that court cases related to constitutional rights have risen after the passing of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) so that courts have to limit on standing cases. The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has provided guidance on standing cases based on the serious justiciable issue, the genuine interest of the affiant, and the reason and effective means to bring the case to court.

The article focuses on the meaning of freedom of conscience for Canadians. As described by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, everyone has the right of freedom of conscience and religion. But the freedom of religion and freedom of conscience are two different rights due to which the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) is expected to provide explanation. International law has provided some guidelines related to it in the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The article explains the rejection of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) on the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in the R vs Kokopenace court case on the lack of Aboriginal representation. Topics discussed include the decision of SCC was based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms sections 11(d), 11(f) and 15, and the SCC evaluated on the decision of the Ontario court over providing a fair opportunity in aboriginal representation concerning the conviction of Kokopenace.

The article discusses the Canada Supreme Court case R v. Clifford Kokopenace which deals with the right of First People who live on reserve are included on jury rolls. The court held the manslaughter conviction of Kokopenace for violating the rights of the First Nations people. The court examines the systemic discrimination of First Nations people within the justice system.

The article presents the court case Quebec (Attorney General) v A, wherein the decision given by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) seems to have divided the Court on the issue of discrimination and equality. It informs that the issue was weather or not to exclude common law spouses from the civil court of Quebec provisions and also discuss concerns related to violation of section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The article discusses a court case wherein Frederick Moore, father of Jeffrey Moore, sued a School District and the British Columbia Ministry of Education for discriminating his son because of his disability by denying services. The Human Rights Tribunal of Canada concluded that the failure of the public school system to give the support needed by Jeffrey was discrimination under the Human Rights Code of the British Columbia. The Supreme Court of Canada restored the finding of discrimination.

The article discusses the Supreme Court of Canada case Quebec v. Bombardier Inc., providing guidance on the complainant's burden of proving discriminations. Javed Latif, a Canadian citizen born in Pakistan and a licensed pilot, filed a case against Bombardier alleging that the firm had discriminated against him on the grounds of ethnic or national origin. Information about a prima facie case of discrimination is presented.

The article offers information concerning legal aid services which provides individuals with access to the legal system and to legal representation in Canada. It mentions that while there is no right to counsel under the Canadian Constitution, the Youth Criminal Justice Act provides that a judge can order legal representation for a young person in a criminal matter. An overview of the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada pertaining to legal aid is also offered.

The article focuses on the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the 2007 case of Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony v. Alberta. It states that the court ruled in a different direction from the one carried by the Alberta courts. It cites the case involves the move of the Alberta government to amend a regulation eliminating the ability of the Registrar to issue drivers' licences without photos.

The article presents an analysis regarding the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada (SSC) on the case "Director of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission v. Kellogg Brown & Root Inc." It states that the SSC did not clarify the law involving pre-employment drug testing for employers, employees and human rights commissions. It pertains to the uncertainty of whether a perceived addiction to alcohol and drugs is protected under human rights legislation.