Class Notes (839,189)
Canada (511,223)
LWSO 335 (17)
Lecture 3

LWSO 335 Week 3 Notes

6 Pages
109 Views

Department
Law and Society
Course Code
LWSO 335
Professor
Linda Mc Kay- Panos

This preview shows pages 1 and half of page 2. Sign up to view the full 6 pages of the document.
Description
Finishing Human Rights and starting Equality Human Rights- Section 3  Says that you cannot publish anything that either indicated discrimination or is likely to expose a certain type of person to hatred or contempt, means “active dislike”  What is likely to expose someone of that?  Focuses on focus group  Current leading case is the Mazzan and Lund  Someone wrote a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate  Letter was published, wording involved that gay advocates against discrimination  Originally, case was dismissed  Complained against editor and writer  Newspaper said were sorry, we will use a new policy  Not enough to rise to discrimination or hatred  You can complain to the chief commissioner, they held a tribunal  When the case got to the tribunal, it was a tribunal of one  There was an intention to incite hatred, ordered remedies like witness who heard of gay bashing due to the article  He also had do pay Lund 5 000 – hurt feelings  Was appealed to the Court of Queens Bench  Weather this section violated section 2- freedom of expression of the charter, they argued that it was not the provincial choice to pass this law  The judge, said first of all, this was not a case of discrimination, this has to be in an area within the act  Said that it was more against human rights advocators, not gay people , even if it was, none of the remedies were appropriate  Lunds lawyers appealed the order one more time and dismissed it  Since this case, we have had another case, the Watcaw case  Supreme court said that they narrowed the circumstances  There has to be a communication that makes you detest the other person  Not like the hate crime law- with fines and whatnot, more of a “don’t do that again” Bona Fide occupational requirement  Rationally connected  Good faith belief that it was necessary  Actually is necessary to the job and cannot be accommodated to the point of hardship o Firefighter case failed on this point o Most disability law focus on the accommodation part Equality The reason we look at is specifically is because its mentioned in section 15 and 28 of the charter, it is different than discrimination (which is in HRA, equality is not) Elusive quality without any true definition Formal equality-  You treat like people alike  Don’t care of purpose of the law or discrimination  We can discriminate as long as we discriminate equally  Problem- no two people are exactly alike  Best be shows for its flaws by these examples o Bliss case, denial to the us woman based on pregnancy was not discrimination because all women are treated the same, but only women get pregnant o Dred Bones case- cannot be intoxicated off the reserve, not equality o Indian act, Indian woman, married out = lost status, not the same for males Equality of opportunity-  All had the equal opportunity  If one is a doctor and one a farm worker, as long as they both had equal opportunity (ie. Not discriminated by religion) it is okay  Eliminated direct discrimination  Does not address “adverse effect discrimination” o Neutral legislation o Used to be a requirement to be a police requirement 6 ft tall o Neutral rule o Unintentional effect of excluding Asians and women due to personal attributes  When we started having litigation around the charter of rights and freedoms Substantive equality  We must look at purpose of the law and effects  Looking at the outcome of the law  “every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination  equal before the law  equal under the law  equal protection from the law  equal benefit of the law We are bouncing back between the last 2 today “… a distinction, whether intentional or not but based on the grounds relating to the personal charachteristics of the individual or the group, which has the effect of imposing burders, obligation, disadvantages on such individual or group not imposed upon others, or which withholds or limits access to opportunities, benefits, and adantages available to other members of society”  court could still not settle on this o Eldrige case o 2 patients, one pregnant with twins, second that had health issues o blackboard week 4 Janzen v Platy enterprises ltd 1989 o charter remedies are often systemic “change the program” “The Law Case”  About a person whose last name happened to be Law  Facts were not sympathetic shes 30 and doesn’t have a job  Young woman, who became a widow, applied for a pension, (went to federal court system)  Denied  You only get a pension if you have dependent children or you're disabled  Court took this chance to clarify the law  Made a 3 part test to identify discrimination o Does the law, pr
More Less
Unlock Document

Only pages 1 and half of page 2 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit