Organizational Issues

Related Cases

• Ontario Human Rights Commission v Simpson-Sears

  Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Simpsons-Sears, [1985] 2 SCR 536; The Supreme Court of Canada found that it is not necessary to prove that discrimination is intentional to find that there has been a violation of human rights. A neutral rule can have discriminatory effects. Where a rule has a discriminatory effect, a duty to accommodate will be triggered 

• Bhinder v CN

  Bhinder v. CN, [1985] 2 SCR 561; Mr. Binder, a member of the Sikh religion who wears a turban was fired because he refused to wear a hard hat. The Supreme Court of Canada found that there was no duty to accommodate where there is a bona fide occupational requirement. While the hart hat requirement had a discriminatory effect on Sikhs; this requirement was a bona fide occupational requirement and was therefore not discriminatory. 

• Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia

  Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 SCR 143; the Supreme Court of Canada held that a rule which restricts an entire class of persons from certain forms of employment, on the grounds of a lack of citizenship status and without consideration to educational and professional qualifications, infringes section 15 (equality rights) of the Charter.  

• Eldridge v British Columbia (Attorney General)

  Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1997] 3 SCR 624; In this decision, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that if a service is to be provided, it must be done in an inclusive manner. The Court ruled that sign language interpreters must be provided in the delivery of medical services where doing so is necessary to ensure effective communication.  

• British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles v British Columbia (Council of Human Rights)

  British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v. British Columbia (Council of Human Rights), [1999] 3 SCR 868; The Supreme Court of Canada held that that it was discriminatory to cancel the license of a person with a visual disability.  

• Lovelace v Ontario

  Lovelace v. Ontario, 2000 SCC 37, [2000] 1 SCR 950; At that time, this was the leading decision from the Supreme Court of Canada on section 15(2) of the Charter. This section protects affirmative action programs from the equality requirement under section 15(1) of the Charter. The Court held that the distribution of casino profits to a select group of Indigenous Peoples was not discriminatory.  

• Harper v Canada (Attorney General)

  Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 33, [2004] 1 SCR 827; the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Canada Election’s Act spending limits on third-party election advertising infringes section 2(b) of the Charter. This section deals with the fundamental freedoms in relation to thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication. The Court ruled that while section 2(b) of the Charter was infringed, it was saved  by section 1 of the Charter, and that the limits imposed under the Act were justified as it helped to protect fairness in elections.

• Charkaoui v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

  Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 SCC 9, [2007] 1 SCR 350; The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the detention of a permanent resident or foreign national deemed to be a threat to national security, infringes section 7 (life, liberty, and security of the person) of the person.  

• Council of Canadians with Disabilities v VIA Rail Canada Inc.

  Council of Canadians with Disabilities v. VIA Rail Canada Inc., 2007 SCC 15, [2007] 1 SCR 650; the Supreme Court of Canada required VIA Rail to modify its coach and service cars to accommodate those who use mobility devices. The costly renovation required to modify the trains did not constitute undue hardship. This case sets a strong precedent that what constitutes “undue hardship” is a high threshold. 

• Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v Canada (Attorney General) (Mowat)

  Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General) (Mowat), 2011 SCC 53, [2011] 3 SCR 471; the Supreme Court of Canada ruled the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal’s does not have the power to award legal costs. Unfortunately, this case has a negative impact on our clients. This means that clients are unable to recover legal costs after human rights tribunal hearings.