What Was Said

Significant quotes from recent decisions.

"Marriage commissioners do not act as private citizens when they discharge their official duties. Rather, they serve as agents of the Province and act on its behalf and its behalf only. Accordingly, a system that would make marriage services available according to the personal religious beliefs of commissioners is highly problematic. It would undercut the basic principle that governmental services must be provided on an impartial and non-discriminatory basis."

Human Rights Digest 12-1, January 2011

"[T]he complainant seeks equal access to a provided benefit or service. Requiring a comparison with another disability group, who may also be suffering from a lack of accommodation, risks perpetuating the very disadvantage and exclusion from mainstream society the Code is intended to remedy. The fact that there may have been same treatment of some groups is irrelevant if the end result is that the complainant receives unequal access to the benefit or service."

Human Rights Digest 11-8, November / December 2010

"However, fundamental differences exist between the Charter and the Code, including differences in: the nature of the legislation (constitutional versus quasi-constitutional); the scope of the guarantees provided (the Charter contains a broad equality guarantee while the Code creates a limited right to be free of discrimination in prescribed areas); the circumstances in which the guarantees will apply (the Charter is restricted to government conduct while the Code applies to both private and public actors); and, finally, the specific exemptions or defences that are available (s. 15 of the Charter contains an absolute prohibition against discrimination but s. 1 of the Charter provides a limited defence of justification, while the Code prohibits discrimination absolutely but also contains some absolute exemptions and defences)…"

Human Rights Digest 11-7, October 2010

"[T]here have been no attempts to raise awareness of human rights legislation pertaining to family status among either management or employees, nor manage any perceived or actual resistance among those in the workforce who may not directly benefit from accommodation measures at any given time. The evidence of the Respondent's management witnesses showed a very cursory, nominal understanding of human rights legislation…"

Human Rights Digest 11-6, August/September 2010
Donate Now Through CanadaHelps.org! Faire un don maintenant par CanadaHelps.org!

CHRR decisions are only available from Canadian Human Rights Reporter Inc.

CHRR decisions are not included in LawSource (Westlaw), Quicklaw (LexisNexis) or CanLII.