About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

2 Hum. Rts. Dig. 1 (2001)

handle is hein.journals/hurtsdg2 and id is 1 raw text is: VOLUME 2 NUMBER 1 HumJan Rarts 2g j:Janar 2001T Decisions Noted Marital Status Includes Identity of Spouse ....................1 No Remedy for Discrimination by Band Council .................3 Grievance Process Justifies Dismissal of Com plaint ................. 4 Accommodation of Sikh Practice Would Cause Undue Hardship. . . . 5 Decision on Bipolar Disorder O verturned ..................6 Commission Can Reconsider C om plaint ...................7 Race Complaint Returned to Com m ission .................. 7 WCB Act Does Not Replace Human Rights Code .................. 8 Commission Cannot Proceed without Complainant ........... 8 Requests for Medical Information Not Harassment ............... 9 Disclosure of Government Documents Ordered ........... 9 Commission Failed to Disclose Docum ents.................. 10 No Discrimination on the Basis of Race .....................10 Inside Page ................. 2 Briefly Noted ..... ........11 Ordering.....................12 FAMILY STATUS - employment ter- minated for parent - employment termi- nated for spouse - family status defini- tion includes marriage to a particular person - EXEMPTIONS - marital status - DISCRIMINATION -definition ofdis- crimination - identification with pro- tected group - HUMAN RIGHTS - na- ture and purpose of human rights legislation INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - case law as an aid to interpretation - defini- tion of family status and marital status - rules of construction - plain meaning rule-APPEALS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW - error of law in interpreting legislation The Ontario Court of Appeal set aside a de- cision of the Ontario Court, General Divi- sion (1999), 34 C.H.R.R. D/344, and re- stored a Board of Inquiry ruling (sub nom. A. v. B.) (1996), 30 C.H.R.R. D/246, re- garding discrimination based on marital and family status. Mr. A., an employee Harm at with a record of twenty- the idlmfty six years of service, was fired. His employers, sIsc o Mr. B. and Mr. C. were constitute) his wife's brothers. In September 1990, after based onm many years of therapy, Stat s. In his Mr. A.'s daughter re- membered that it was her uncle, Mr. B., who T-Zlte fll had sexually assaulted YW(a' m her as a child. Mr. A.'s wife and daughter con- fronted Mr. B. and ac- hisspousea cused him of sexual abuse. When Mr. A. subsequently reported for work, he was fired by Mr. B. Mr. A. filed a human rights complaint alleging that his termination constituted discrimination based on marital and family status. The Board of Inquiry found that the sole reason for A.'s termination was the fact that his daughter had made allegations of sexual abuse against her uncle. The Board concluded that at the time of the termina- tion A. had given B. no cause for concern about his loyalty or their continuing com- patibility in the work setting. The Board found that A. was discriminated against because of marital and family status. The Divisional Court overturned this de- cision, finding that discrimination on the basis of marital and family status does not include discrimination because of the iden- tity of the person to whom one is married or with whom one is in a familial relation- ship. Mr. A., the Divisional Court found, was not a member of a disadvantaged group of husbands or fathers. In fact, he was fired because of the personal animosity of his employer, and this did not constitute discrimination within the meaning of the Code. However, the Ontario Court of Appeal rejected this conclusion. cil ecauc of The Court of Appeal (Qlduc tofl looked to the broader reasoning in Brossard r 1ee cal c. Quebec (Comm. des rimIII uin v droits de la personne) (1989), 10 C.H.R.R. D/5515 (S.C.C.) and s was not determined that harms rirrzosyit~t attracted because of the identity or conduct A.'slississa, of a spouse or family Iv basedon member can constitute discrimination based on marital and family sta- dl g au~kl~ tus. In this case it was not just personal ani- mosity that resulted in Mr. A. 's dismissal, it was animosity based on the identity and conduct of his spouse and daughter. continued on page 3

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most