Canadian Law

Hobbes believed the lives of humans are poor, nasty, brutish, and short; thus, need to control humansLocke believed law is there to protect the rights of individualsLaw is Latin for "to bind"

treat like cases alike and different cases differently (take circumstances into consideration)if it does not discriminate on basis of irrelevant characteristics (e.g., race, colour of skin, etc.)law should be impartial (equal to celebrities and normal citizens)conforms to society's values and beliefs

1. If any one "point the finger" at a sister of a god or the wife of any one, and can not prove it, this man shall be taken before the judges and his brow shall be marked (by cutting the skin, or perhaps hair). 2. If a herdsman, to whose care cattle or sheep have been entrusted, be guilty of fraud and make false returns of the natural increase, or sell them for money, then shall he be convicted and pay the owner ten times the loss.3. If any one take a male or female slave of the court, or a male or female slave of a freed man, outside the city gates, he shall be put to death. 4. If any one take over a field to till it, and obtain no harvest therefrom, it must be proved that he did no work on the field, and he must deliver grain, just as his neighbor raised, to the owner of the field.5. If any one is committing a robbery and is caught, then he shall be put to death. 6. If a merchant give an agent corn, wool, oil, or any other goods to transport, the agent shall give a receipt for the amount, and compensate the merchant therefor. Then he shall obtain a receipt from the merchant for the money that he gives the merchant. 7. If a man destroy the eye of another man, they shall destroy his eye. If one break a man's bone, they shall break his bone. If one destroy the eye of a freeman or break the bone of a freeman he shall pay one mana of silver. If one destroy the eye of a man's slave or break a bone of a man's slave he shall pay one-half his price. 8. If a man marries a woman and she bears him no sons; if then this woman dies, if the "purchase price" which he had paid into the house of his father-in-law is repaid to him, her husband shall have no claim upon the dowry of this woman; it belongs to her father's house. 9. If a man hires an ox, and he break its leg or cuts the ligament of its neck, he shall compensate the owner with ox for ox. 10. If a man strikes a freeborn woman so that she loses her unborn child, he shall pay ten shekels for her loss.

1. If any one, man or woman, shall have called a woman harlot, and a not have been able to prove it, he shall be sentenced to 1800 denars, which make 45 shillings.2. If any person shall have called another "fox," he shall be sentenced to 3 shillings.3. If any man shall have called another "hare," he shall be sentenced to 3 shillings.4. If any one have assaulted and plundered a freeman, and it be proved on him, he shall be sentenced to 2500 denars, which make 63 shillings.5. If a Roman have plundered a Salian Frank, the above law shall be ordered.6. But if a Frank have plundered a Roman, he shall be sentenced to 35 shillings.7. If any man die and leave no sons, if the father and mother survive, they shall inherit.8. If the father and mother do not survive, and he leave brothers or sisters, they shall inherit.9. But if there are none, the sisters of the father shall inherit.10. But if there are no sisters of the father, the sisters of the mother shall claim the inheritance.11. If there are none of these, the nearest relative on the fathcr's side shall succeed to that inheritance.12. But of Salic land no portion of the inheritance shall come to a woman: but the whole inheritance of the land shall come to the male sex.13. If any one shall have killed a free Frank, or a barbarian living under the Salic law, and it have been proved on him, he shall be sentenced to 8000 denars.14. But if he shall have thrown him into a well or into the water, or shall have covered him with branches or anything else, to conceal him, he shall be sentenced to 24000 denars, which make 600 shillings.15. But if any one has slain a man who is in the service of the king, he shall be sentenced to 24000 denars, which make 600 shillings.16. But if he have put him in the water or in a well, and covered him with anything to conceal him, he shall be sentenced to 72000 denars, which make 1800 shillings.

Thou shalt not murder.Thou shalt not steal.Thou shalt not commit adultery.Thou shalt have no other gods before me.Thou shalt not covet (neighbour's house, wife, slaves, animals).21:15 (Exodus) Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death.21:17 Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death.21:29 When an ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not kept it in, and it kills a man or woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner shall also be put to death.22:1 If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall pay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. He shall make restitution; if he has nothing, he shall be sold for his theft.23:1 You shall not utter a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness.

1. That the English Church shall be free, and shall have her whole rights and her liberties inviolable [safe from sudden change]; . . . . We have also granted to all the freemen of our kingdom, for us and our heirs forever, all the underwritten liberties, to be enjoyed and held by them and by their heirs, from us and from our heirs . . . .12. No scutage [tax for military purposes] nor aid shall be imposed in our kingdom, unless by the common council of our kingdom; excepting to redeem [ransom] our person, to make our eldest son a knight, and once to marry our eldest daughter, and not for these unless a reasonable aid shall be demanded . . . .14. And also to have the common council of the kingdom, we will cause to be summoned the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and great barons, individually by our letters . . . .38. No bailiff, for the future, shall put any man to his law upon his own simple affirmation, without credible witnesses produced for that purpose.39. No freeman shall be seized, imprisoned, dispossessed [deprived of his land], outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed; nor will we proceed against or prosecute him except by the lawful judgment of his peers [equals], or by the law of the land.40. To none will we sell, to none will we deny, to none will we delay right or justice.41. All merchants shall have safety and security in coming into England, and going out of England, and in staying in and traveling through England, as well by land as by water to buy and sell, without any unjust exactions [demands], according to ancient and right customs, excepting in the time of war, and if they be of a country at war against us; and if such are found in our land at the beginning of a war, they shall be apprehended [arrested] without injury to their bodies and goods until it be known to us or to our Chief Justiciary how the merchants of our country are treated who are found in the country at war against us; and if ours be in safety there, the others shall be in safety in our land.42. It shall be lawful to any person, for the future, to go out of our kingdom, and to return, safely and securely by land or by water, saving [preserving] his allegiance to us, unless it be in time of war, for some short space, for the common good of the kingdom . . . .60. Also all these customs and liberties aforesaid, which we have granted to be held in our kingdom, for so much of it as belongs to us, all our subjects, as well clergy as laity [nonclergy, or laymen], shall observe toward their tenants as far as concerns them . . . .63. Wherefore our will is, and we firmly command that the Church of England be free, and that the men in our kingdom have and hold the aforesaid liberties, rights, and concessions, well and in peace, freely and quietly, fully and entirely, to them and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all things and places forever, as is aforesaid. It is also sworn, both on our part and on that of the barons, that all the aforesaid shall be observed in good faith and without any evil intention . . .

Common law (also known as judicial precedent or judge-made law) is the body of law derived from judicial decisions of courts and similar tribunals. The defining characteristic of "common law" is that it arises as precedent. In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, a common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts, and synthesizes the principles of those past cases as applicable to the current facts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is usually bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (a principle known as stare decisis). If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases (called a "matter of first impression"), and legislative statutes are either silent or ambiguous on the question, judges have the authority and duty to resolve the issue (one party or the other has to win, and on disagreements of law, judges make that decision).The court states an opinion that gives reasons for the decision, and those reasons agglomerate with past decisions as precedent to bind future judges and litigants. Common law, as the body of law made by judges, stands in contrast to and on equal footing with statutes which are adopted through the legislative process, and regulations which are promulgated by the executive branch (the interactions among these different sources of law are explained later in this article). Stare decisis, the principle that cases should be decided according to consistent principled rules so that similar facts will yield similar results, lies at the heart of all common law systems.The common law—so named because it was "common" to all the king's courts across England—originated in the practices of the courts of the English kings in the centuries following the Norman Conquest in 1066. The British Empire spread the English legal system to its colonies, many of which retain the common law system today. These "common law systems" are legal systems that give great weight to judicial precedent, and to the style of reasoning inherited from the English legal system.

In medieval Europe and England, people were very religious. Everyone assumed that God would protect people from harm. So, when a legal case was hard to decide, the judge would sometimes order a new trial to be "decided" by God.Ordeal by combat took place between two parties in a dispute, either two individuals, or between an individual and a government or other organization. They, or, under certain conditions, a designated "champion" acting on their behalf, would fight, and the loser of the fight or the party represented by the losing champion was deemed guilty or liable.Ordeal by fire was one form of torture. The ordeal of fire typically required that the accused walk a certain distance, usually 9 feet (2.7 metres) or a certain number of paces, usually three, over red-hot ploughshares or holding a red-hot iron. Innocence was sometimes established by a complete lack of injury, but it was more common for the wound to be bandaged and re-examined three days later by a priest, who would pronounce that God had intervened to heal it, or that it was merely festering—in which case the suspect would be exiled or put to death.Ordeal by water was later associated with the witch-hunts of the 16th and 17th centuries, although in this scenario the outcome was an accused who sank was considered innocent, while floating indicated witchcraft. Demonologists developed inventive new theories about how it worked. The ordeal would normally be conducted with a rope holding the subject connected to assistants sitting in a boat or the like, so that the person being tested could be pulled in if he/she did not float. Some argued that witches floated because they had renounced baptism when entering the Devil's service. Compurgation, also called wager of law and oath-helping, was a defence used primarily in medieval law. A defendant could establish his innocence or nonliability by taking an oath and by getting a required number of persons, typically twelve, to swear they believed the defendant's oath. The wager of law was essentially a character reference, initially by kin and later by neighbours (from the same region as the defendant), often 11 or 12 men, and it was a way to give credibility to the oath of a defendant at a time when a person's oath had more credibility than a written record. It can be compared to legal wager, which is the provision of surety at the beginning of legal action to minimize frivolous litigation.

The First Reading: An idea for a law or a change to an existing law is presented and the bill is considered read for the first time and is printed. The Second Reading: A second reading happens when the bill is introduced in the in the chamber. The parliamentarians debate the idea behind the bill, asking questions such as “is the idea behind the bill safe or good?”.Committee Stage: The committee members study the bill. Report Stage: Members are able to make amendments and changes to the bill.Third Reading: Members will vote on the bill. Senate: The bill is debated one final time and the senate will vote on the bill. Royal Assent: The bill is shown to the Governor General. The Governor General can assent for the Queen. They can also reserve and withhold assent in her name. Once Royal Assent is given, the bill becomes a law.

Lobbying is the act of attempting to influence decisions made by officials in a government. Lobbying is done by many types of people, associations and organized groups, including individuals in private sector corporations, fellow legislators or government officials, or advocacy groups (interest groups). Professional lobbyists are people whose business is trying to influence legislation on behalf of a group or individual who hires them. Individuals and nonprofit organizations can also lobby as an act of volunteering or as a small part of their normal job (for instance, a CEO meeting with a member of parliament about a project important to his/her company, or an activist meeting with his/her legislator in an unpaid capacity).Lobby groups, such as MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) and the Coalition for Gun Control have not only convinced legislators to change the law regarding drinking drivers and the registration of firearms, they have also succeeded in altering public opinion on these issues. Other organizations such as LEAF (Legal Education Action Fund) challenge existing laws in court and have forced a broad range of changer in law on matters from sexual assault to pay equity. Environmental lobby groups have managed to persuade legislatures to pass laws to protect the environment.

Royal Commissions, or commissions of inquiry, also influence changes in the law. Royal Commissions are appointed by the federal Cabinet, and their role is to conduct impartial investigations of specific national problems. Royal Commissions have ranged from investigations into the proper weighing of butter and cheese to the use of insanity as a legal defence. For example, between 1993 and 1996 a Royal Commission, led by Horace Krever, investigated Canada's blood-supply system. This commission was appointed because individuals had contracted hepatitis C and HIV in the 1980s after receiving blood and blood products screened by the Red Cross.In the summer of 1990, the Mohawk people of Kanesatake engaged in an armed struggle with the villagers of Oka, Quebec, over the expansion of a private golf course onto land that the Mohawks claimed as thier own. The Mohawk Warriors Society set up a blockade, which was stormed by the Quebec police force, resulting in the death of a police officer. Troops of the Canadian Armed Forces were called in, and a standoff ensued, lasting 78 days. Once the conflict was over, a Royal Commission was set up to investigate and report on the dispute. The Commission made 440 recommendations, including reforms to Aboriginal health care, housing, training, and land claims. The cost of these reforms was estimated at $30 billion. The Commission also revived the idea that Aboriginal peoples should form a "third order of government," with suggestions for setting up an Aboriginal Parliament, a university, and development banks. Many Canadians questioned the $30 billion price tag, and many objected to the idea of a self-governing nation within Canada. However, George Erasmus, co-chair of the Commission and former chief of the Assembly of First Nations, said that the Royal Commission was the first step in establishing trust between Aboriginal peoples and the federal and provincial governments.

How to Change (Amend) the Constitution (Amendment Formula)Need the agreement of 7 out of 10 provinces that have a total of 50% of the total population of CanadaTerms:Entrenched - as in, the Charter is entrenched in the Constitution; so, to change the Charter you will need to use the Amendment Formula (as opposed to just a normal change to a statute law) in the House of CommonsParliamentary Supremacy - the government (House of Commons) has the power to interpret laws, change them, etc.Judicial Supremacy - the courts have the power to interpret laws and make sure all statute laws measure up to the freedoms listed in the Charter; arguably, with the creation of the Charter Canada is more based on judicial supremacySection 1 - The GuaranteeReasonable Limits - Gives the government the ability to create laws that limit freedoms as long as those laws are “reasonable”The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.Section 2 - Fundamental FreedomsLists all of your basic fundamental freedoms - religion (you can believe in any religion), assembly (you can join any club or group), protest (you can protest anything you want), speech (you can say anything you want), press (the media can print/public any news they want), etc.Of course, all of these rights (like every right in the entire Charter) are subject to reasonable limits (Section 1)Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:(a) freedom of conscience and religion;(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and(d) freedom of association.Section 10 (a) (b) (c) - Arrest or DetentionEveryone has the right on arrest or detention(a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;(b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and(c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.Section 11 (a) (b) (d) (h) (i) Proceedings in criminal/legal matters Any person charged with an offence has the right(a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;(b) to be tried within a reasonable time;(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;(h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; and(i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment.(H&I are known as Double Jeopardy - tl;dr, If found guilty or not guilty you cannot be tried or punished for that exact same crime again)Section 13 - Table 5 13 A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.e.g., while serving as witness for a trial you can say anything (as long as it is honest) and not have to worry about repercussions Section 15 (1) (2) - Equality RightsEquality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law15 (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.Affirmative action programs(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.Section 24 (1) (2) - EnforcementEnforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms24 (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.Exclusion of evidence bringing administration of justice into disrepute (2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.Section 33 (1) (3) - Application of charter33 (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.Five year limitation(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.The Notwithstanding Clause:The notwithstanding clause — or Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — gives provincial legislatures or Parliament the ability, through the passage of a law, to override certain portions of the charter for a five-year term.

A. Which one of the following offenders has to be present at the scene of a crime?-aider-abettor-accessory after the fact-co-perpetratorB. Which party to an offence is each of these participants:"look out" persondriver of the getaway car"mapper," the person who draws up the bank's floor plan"insider" who works at the bank and advises the robbers on the best time of day to striketwo robbers, one to carry a gun, the other to grab the cashperson who owns the "crash pad" where the robbers go after the holdup1 + 3 = Aiding4 = Aiding + Counselling2 + 6 = Accessory5 = PerpetratorC. Gilbert and Jamal work for a high-powered accounting firm in Halifax. They devise a plan to embezzle $500 000 from the firm. They are sure their plan will succeed until Dahlia, another employee, learns of it and threatens to tell the police unless Gilbert and Jamal give her $250 000. At Gilbert's urging, Jamal strangles Dahlia and dumps her body into the Halifax harbour. Can both Gilbert and Jamal be charged with a crime? Explain.Jamal can be charged with murder and Gilbert can be charged with abetting and conspiracy to commit murder.D. Nicole is a professional pickpocket who works the Montreal subway system during rush hour. One morning in a crowded subway car, she puts her hand in Michel's jacket pocket to lift his wallet but discovers the pocket is empty. She withdraws her hand a little too slowly, and Michel grabs her by the wrist. Can Michel have Nicole charged with a crime? Explain.Michel can have her charged with Incomplete Crime: Attempt.E. Abigail decides to intimidate Barney, her competitor in the canning industry, by having a biker break his legs. She meets the biker in a bar to discuss the plan. The biker sets his fee at $800. Abigail asks for 24 hours to think it over. She never calls the biker back. Meanwhile, the biker tells several regulars at the bar about Abigail's plan, and word gets back to Barney. Can Abigail be charged with Incomplete Crime: Conspiracy? Explain.No, because she didn't actually make the agreement yet (money did not exchange hands.)

The Youth Criminal Justice Act is the law that governs Canada’s youth justice system. It applies to youth who are at least 12 but under 18 years old, who are alleged to have committed criminal offences. In over a century of youth justice legislation in Canada, there have been three youth justice statutes: the Juvenile Delinquents Act (1908-1984), the Young Offenders Act (YOA) (1984-2003), and the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) (2003-present). A set of amendments to the YCJA was adopted by Parliament in 2012. The purpose of this document is to explain the background of the YCJA, to provide a summary of its main provisions and the rationale behind them, and to highlight the experience under the YCJA.BackgroundOn April 1, 2003, the YCJA came into force, completely replacing the previous legislation, the YOA. The YCJA introduced significant reforms to address concerns about how the youth justice system had evolved under the YOA. These concerns included the overuse of the courts and incarceration in less serious cases, disparity and unfairness in sentencing, a lack of effective reintegration of young people released from custody, and the need to better take into account the interests of victims. The YCJA provided the legislative framework for a fairer and more effective youth justice system. The amendments adopted by Parliament in 2012 aimed to strengthen the ways in which the youth justice system deals with repeat and violent offenders.

The Trudeau government intends to cut widespread use of mandatory minimum sentences by giving judges back their discretion over punishment, Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould says.The changes will undo a major element of the Harper government's tough-on-crime agenda. Judges will be given the "appropriate discretion to be able to impose sentences, engage and understand – as they do better than anybody else – the individual that is before them," the Justice Minister told The Globe and Mail in an interview as the Liberals near the end of their first year in power. "To base their decisions on the actual circumstances of the case before them and render judgment."She said new legislation on mandatory minimums is coming soon, "certainly in the early part of next year." Last month, the government gave judges back the discretion they had lost in 2013 over the victim surcharge – a financial penalty from which judges once routinely exempted impoverished offenders, until it became mandatory.

Canadian rights are protected by the CharterBut, the Charter only protects Canadians from abuses by the government or its agencies (e.g., laws)The Charter doesn't protect from discriminationHuman rights legislation covers race, ethnicity, sex, religion, colour, age, sexual orientation, gender, mental/physical disability, family/marital statusThe Ontario Human Rights Code is a statute law - so, it is not entrenched in the Constitution like the Charter of Rights and FreedomsBut, the Supreme Court of Canada has stated that human rights codes should be viewed as "quasi-constitutional" in that human rights codes take supremacy over other statute laws

Complainantthe person / organization taking an issue to the Ontario Human Rights Commission (kind of like the Prosecution / Crown, but not really)this person / organization files a COMPLAINT Respondentthe person / organization having to provide an explanationthis person / organization RESPONDS to the complaint Gravamengravis (latin) for "heavy" (to grieve, gravity = all come from the latin gravis)the essence or most significant part of a complaint; the part of an accusation that weighs most heavily against the accusede.g., If Billy was subjected at work to ongoing sexual advances by Johnny the gravamen of the issue is sexual harrassment Prima Facieat first view ("first face"); at first impressionlegally sufficient to establish a fact or a case unless disprovedOntario Human Rights Commission uses a Prima Facie review to see if they should pursue a complainte.g., Johnny is constantly telling unsolicited sexual jokes to Billy while at work. Johnny also continuously pesters Billy for a date, though Billy always turns Johnny down and asks him to stop. On first review it seems Billy has a valid complaint (prima facie sexual harrassment) as he is experiencing a human rights issue due to the sexual advances of Johnny. So, the Ontario Human Rights Commission will probably investigate.

Cases:A. A school fires a teacher because it was discovered by the administration that the teacher had recently been convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol. The teacher is angry. B. In order to deal with drug dealing in a high school, the principal arranges for police dogs to walk by all of the lockers, sniffing for drugs. In suspicious cases, the principal orders students concerned to empty their pockets, wallets, and remove their shoes and socks. The principal also searches the lockers under suspicion. The students are angry. C. Mandatory urine tests for drugs are given to new employees and random urine tests to current employees exist in the truck driving profession. Those refusing the test are fired and those testing positive are required to participate in a rehabilitation program. After the program, those refusing to be tested or who test positive again are fired. The truckers are angry. D. A person applies for a job at a local clothing store. The person had worked in the sales and clothing industries for over five years and there was no one better qualified who obtained the position. The person was hired by the business but felt discriminated against because the business took over two weeks to offer the job. The person is angry. E. An employee of a business is injured in a car crash. As a result, the employee cannot walk and needs very expensive equipment as well as an elevator to move around at work. The owner says she cannot afford the special equipment and elevator so she subsequently fires the employee. The employee is angry. F. A Sikh male student comes to school with a kirpan (a religious ceremonial dagger), a requirement of his religion. His school board forbids the kirpan because it could be used as a weapon and suspends him. The student is angry.Answers Who is the Complainant? - TeacherWhos is the Respondent? - SchoolWhat is the Gravamen of the case? - Privacy / employmentIs there a Prima Facie complaint? - YesWho do you think wins the case? - Probably the teacher - The school would have to show the offence committed is related to the job Answers:A.Who is the Complainant? - TeacherWhos is the Respondent? - SchoolWhat is the Gravamen of the case? - Privacy / employmentIs there a Prima Facie complaint? - YesWho do you think wins the case? - Probably the teacher - The school would have to show the offence committed is related to the job B.Who is the Complainant? - StudentsWhos is the Respondent? - PrincipalWhat is the Gravamen of the case? - Privacy RightsIs there a Prima Facie complaint? - YesWho do you think wins the case? - Probably the students - Privacy issues are covered by the Code (but lockers do not apply) C.Who is the Complainant? - TruckersWhos is the Respondent? - EmployerWhat is the Gravamen of the case? - Privacy rightsIs there a Prima Facie complaint? - YesWho do you think wins the case? - The Truckers may win - This is a delicate issue and one that is in flux (changing) D.Who is the Complainant? - PersonWhos is the Respondent? - Store OwnerWhat is the Gravamen of the case? - No clear gravamenIs there a Prima Facie complaint? - NoWho do you think wins the case? - The Business would likely win - It seems the clothing store still followed proper procedure and is in line with the Code, even if it took two weeks E.Who is the Complainant? - EmployeeWhos is the Respondent? - Business OwnerWhat is the Gravamen of the case? - Equal treatment in employmentIs there a Prima Facie complaint? - YesWho do you think wins the case? - Possibly the employee - A business has to a duty to accommodate employees, but there are limits to how much is expected F.Who is the Complainant? - StudentWhos is the Respondent? - School BoardWhat is the Gravamen of the case? - Religious freedomIs there a Prima Facie complaint? - YesWho do you think wins the case? - Likely the student - The Code protects against discrimination based on religion

Complaint: The Commission reviews your complaint.|Response: If accepted, a copy of your complaint is sent to the respondent with a request to reply|Reply: A copy of the respondent's reply to your complaint is sent to you.|Assessment for further action|Early Dismissal: The Commission is unable to proceed with your complaint (+Right to appeal to Chief Commissioner)|OR|Conciliation: Attempt is made to work with you and the respondent to settle the complaint (+1, If conciliation is successful, your complaint file is closed.)|OR|Investigation: Where Conciliation is not possible/unsuccessful, an investigation into your complaint may take place.|Report: A report of the investigation is sent to you and the respondent.|Dismissal: If the evidence does not support your complaint, it will be dismissed (+Right to appeal to the Chief Commissioner.)|OR|Merit: If evidence supports your complaints, settlement is attempted.|Discontinuance: If you reject a reasonable settlement offer, your file will be closed. (+Right to appeal to the Chief Commissioner.)|OR|Settlement: If your complaint is settled, your file is closed.|OR|No Settlement: If your complaint is not settled, it will be reported to the Chief Commissioner.|Reported to the Chief Commissioner.|Panel Hearing: A human rights panel, appointed by the Chief Commissioner, may hear your complaint.

Tony Kearsley applied for a position as a firefighter with the City of St. Catharines. He was accepted on condition that he pass a medical examination by a doctor specified by the city. During the medical examination, the doctor discovered that Kearsley had an atrial fibrillation (an irregular heartbeat) and refused to pass him. However, Kearsley consulted medical specialists who advised him that his condition would not affect his ability to perform his job as a firefighter. Kearsley then filed a complaint against the city with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.At the Commission’s Board of Inquiry hearing, the doctor who had originally examined Kearsley testified that atrial fibrillation led to increased risk for stroke. He further testified that Kearsley’s heart could fail to pump sufficient blood to his organs during the extreme rigours of firefighting.The Board of Inquiry called a medical expert in atrial fibrillation. The expert testified that the increased risk for stroke in someone Kearsley’s age was inconsequential. The expert further testified that there was no increased risk for heart failure in someone like Kearsley, who was otherwise in good general health. Meanwhile, after being turned down by the St. Catharines fire department, Kearsely had become a firefighter in the City of Hamilton, achieving the rank of first-class firefighter in October 2001.Decision:The Board of Inquiry accepted the evidence of the expert in atrial fibrillation over that of the medical doctor who had originally conducted Kearsley’s physical, since the latter was a general practitioner with no particular expertise in this area. The Board of Inquiry further noted that it would have been appropriate for the City of St. Catharines to seek an expert opinion when confronted with a medical condition such as that found in Kearsley. The Board indicated that this was the procedure used in other municipalities. Since the Board found the risk of impairment to be “miniscule” and “insignificant,” it ruled that Kearsley had suffered discrimination.

[2] The plaintiff is a Roman Catholic 17-year-old Oshawa high school student currently attending Grade 12 at Monsignor John Pereyma Catholic Secondary School. This has been his school since Grade 9 and, prior to that, he attended a Catholic elementary and junior high school. Mr. Hall has identified himself to his parents, his friends and his school peers as having a homosexual orientation.[3] The school holds an annual prom, which is an off-site party and dance held for and in honour of the Grade 12 students. It is a significant social event in the lives of those students as it marks the end of their formal education at that school. It is a school event, organized by a committee of students but supervised by school teachers who ensure security. The Grade 12 students this year range in age from 16 to 18 years, and none are married. All students wishing to buy tickets to the prom must submit for school approval the names of those with whom they intend to attend. The school requires this information for the purposes of knowing who is present at the function, of having contact information for those in attendance and of preventing known troublemakers from attending.[4] About a year ago, Mr. Hall first raised with one of his teachers his wish to bring his boyfriend to the prom this spring. He understood that his teacher would be discussing his request with the school principal. His teacher counselled him that he must follow the Church’s teachings guided by his individual conscience. His teacher did not tell him whether he should or should not bring Mr. Dumond, who has been his boyfriend for about one year, as his date. On February 25, 2002, Principal Powers denied Mr. Hall permission to attend the prom with his boyfriend. The principal reasoned that interaction at a prom between romantic partners is a form of sexual activity and that, if permission were granted to Mr. Hall to attend the prom with his boyfriend as a same-sex couple, this would be seen both as an endorsement and condonation of conduct which is contrary to Catholic church teachings. On April 8, 2002, the School Board refused to reverse the principal’s decision.[5] The defendant Board exists to provide education in its schools in a manner consistent with the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. The defendants argue that, charged as they are with the statutory responsibility of managing this Catholic school, their approval of Mr. Hall’s request would have been contrary to their understanding of Catholic beliefs. They also submit that the plaintiff’s motion should be dismissed because their decisions are both protected by s. 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and an appropriate exercise of freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Things you must consider...No rights are absoluteThere is a limit to everyone's rightsThere is no heirarchy of rightsEvery right is equal, no right is more important than othersRights may not extend as far as claimedOne needs to make sure the rights claimed are actual legal rights (e.g., "customer preference" for a type of secretary is not a legal right)Need to understand the full contextEvery aspect needs to be considered, including societal valuesNeed to consider the extent of interferenceHow much of an impact will this ruling have on the human rights of each individual?The core of a right is more protected than the peripheryCertain aspects of a person's rights are more important than othersRespect the importance of both sets of rightsUnderstand that both sides have rights and that searching for compromise is a good thingDefences in legislation may restrict rightsFor example, the Code may allow a private organization to limit its membership to a certain group of people

The Code protects people from discrimination in specific situations. Under the Code, you have the right to be free from discrimination in five parts of society – called social areas – based on one or more grounds.The five social areas are: employment, housing, services, unions and vocational associations and contracts.Discrimination based on 17 different personal attributes – called grounds – is against the law under the Code. The grounds are: citizenship, race, place of origin, ethnic origin, colour, ancestry, disability, age, creed, sex/pregnancy, family status, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, receipt of public assistance (in housing) and record of offences (in employment).Your rights under the Code are not violated unless the discrimination occurs in one of the social areas based on one or more of the protected grounds. For example, the Code does not apply if a stranger on the street insults you by making a racist comment, because this did not happen in a specific social area, such as at your job or in a restaurant.[1] The Code will also not apply if you feel you were treated differently in your job due to a personality conflict with your manager, because the treatment is not related to a ground such as your age, sex or race.To establish discrimination under Ontario’s Human Rights Code, a claimant must show that:they have a characteristic protected by the Code (e.g. race)they experienced adverse treatment/impact within a social area (for example, in accessing a service, housing or employment)the protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse treatment or impact.A person discriminates “directly” when the action itself is discriminatory and when the person acts on his or her own behalf. For example, a building manager who refuses to rent an apartment because he prefers to rent to someone of his own ethnic background is discriminating directly.“Indirect discrimination” is discrimination carried out through another person. For example, a building manager tells her superintendent not to rent to people of a certain ethnic group because their food “smells too much.” The manager can be named in the human rights claim because she used the superintendent indirectly to discriminate against people because of their ethnic origin.Sometimes a rule or practice unintentionally singles out particular people and results in unequal treatment. This type of unintentional discrimination is called “constructive” or “adverse effect” discrimination. The Code also protects against this type of discrimination. For example, an employer has a rule that employees are not allowed to wear hats or head coverings. The rule is not intended to exclude people who wear head coverings for religious reasons, but it may have this effect. Unless an employer can show that a change or exception to the rule would be too costly or create a health and safety danger, the employer should agree to change the rule.

1. Affirmative ActionGiving advantages to groups who have been discriminated against in the past.Could be use by the government (create a law) or a person / organization.E.g., Two equally qualified applicants, priority may be given to the applicant who is a member of a historically disadvantaged group.E.g., A community rape crisis centre only provides services to women and transgender women because studies and statistics tend to show women are much more likely to experience sexual assault than men. 2. Reasonable and Bona Fide RequirementA qualification that would normally be considered discriminatory but is necessary for proper or efficient job performance.E.g., a truck driving company would probably require an applicant to have a clean driving recordFor a requirement to be deemed bona fide the respondent must show:it was adopted for a purpose or goal that is clearly connected to performing the jobit was adopted in good faith (not done arbitrarily because the respondent doesn't like a person)it is reasonably necessary to perform that particular job (e.g., employees must meet a reasonable and valid standard) 3. Undue HardshipThe result of a change that would affect the economic viability of an enterprise or produce a substantial health and safety risk that outweighs the benefit of the accommodation.E.g., An employee who cannot physically bring boxes up one flight of stairs asks for accommodations, like an elevator. The business (Respondent) argues economic undue hardship.But, costs argued by the business have to be...quantifiable - you need to be able to add them uprelated to the accommodationso substantial that they would alter the essential nature of the enterprise; so significant that they would significantly hinder the viability of the enterpriseE.g., The TTC announces that having subway conductors announce every subway station for passengers with visual disabilities takes away from the conductor's ability to opeate the vehicle safely.The employer has the burden of proving undue hardship.examples include financial statements, scientific data, expert opinion, detailed information about the activity, etc. 4. Special Interest Organizations and Special EmploymentSome organizations are allowed to discriminate with their service and hiring.E.g., charities, schools, social clubs or fraternities may limit membership and involvementCondition = the organization serves only or mostly a particular group of people by a Code groundE.g., A shelter for battered women may refuse service to those identifying as men. 5. RelationsAn employer is allowed to hire or promote (or not!) a child, partner, or parent of his or her. The employer may also choose to hire (or not) a child, partner, or parent of his or her employee.