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

4 Hum. Rts. Dig. 1 (2003)

handle is hein.journals/hurtsdg4 and id is 1 raw text is: VOLUME 4 NUMBER 1 Human Rights Digest January 2003 Decisions Noted Welfare Cuts Not Discrimination..... 1 Board Makes New Remedial O rd ers .. ... ... .... ... ... ... . 4 Parliamentary Privilege Does Not Curtail Rights.............. 5 Babysitter Sexually Harassed..... . Tribunal Orders Complainant to Pay Costs ................ .6 .6 Sexual Harassment Compensated. . . . 7 Tribunal's Impartiality Challenged . . . . 7 Expert W itnesses Rejected ......... 8 Workplace Poisoned Because of R ace ......................9 Objectionable Conduct Not Harassm ent .................. 9 Alberta Discriminates in Health Benefits ... ... ... ... .... ... Server Fired After Epileptic Se izu re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 .10 No Family Status Discrimination . . . . 11 Inside Page ...................2 Briefly Noted ...............11 Legislative Notes .............12 Ordering ....................12 CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS - s. 1 (reasonable limits) and application of Oakes test - s. 7 (security of the person) - s. 15(1) (equality) - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - constitu- tional remedy of striking down - JURIS- DICTION - authority to determine whether provision contravenes the Charter - exclusive jurisdiction FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS -physical security and dignity - EQUALITY - equal treatment - equality in the admin- istration, substance and benefit of the law AGE DISCRIMINATION - PUBLIC SER- VICES AND FACILITIES - SOCIAL CONDITION - SOURCE OF INCOME - social assistance benefits reduced for age group under 30 - EVIDENCE - ex- pert evidence DISCRIMINATION - definition of dis- crimination - adverse effect discrim- ination - intention to discriminate - stereotypes INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - headings and marginal notes as aids to in- terpretation - legislative intent - defini- tion of security of the person - legisla- tive context - purposive approach In a split 5-4 decision the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a 1984 Quebec welfare regulation, which cut welfare rates for sin- gle employable people between the ages of 18 and 30 to approximately one-third of the rate required to meet basic needs, did not discriminate based on age, contrary to s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Louise Gosselin filed a class action suit on behalf of herself and the approximately 85,000 persons in the 18 to 30 age group whose welfare rates were cut to below sub- sistence level. Those under 30 could in- crease the amount of welfare they received by participating in one of three education or work experience programs. Depending on the program, their participation would permit them to raise their welfare rate, though not always to an amount equal to the regular rate. An initial 30,000 places in these three training programs were made available. Louise Gosselin argued that s. 29(a) of the Social Aid Regulations constituted un- justifiable age discrimination under s. 15(1) of the Charter, an infringement under s. 7 of the Charter, and a violation of s. 45 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Gosselin sought a declaration of invalidity and an order that the govern- ment of Quebec reimburse all affected wel- fare recipients for benefits lost due to the age-based distinction. The Chief Justice, joined by Gonthier, lacobucci, Major, and Binnie JJ., wrote the majority judgment on s. 15(1). Justices L'Heureux-Dube, Bastarache, Arbour and LeBel each wrote in dissent. Although there is facial discrimination on the basis of age in the regulation, the majority of the Court determined that age - unlike race or religion - is not historically strongly associated with discrimination. Rather, age-based distinctions are a com- mon and necessary means of ordering our society. The fact that every individual will experience being both young and old oper- ates against the arbitrary marginalization of a particular age group. The majority deter- mined therefore that invoking age as a ground of distinction does not automati- cally show that there is a pre-existing disad- vantage that would suggest discrimination. Moreover, young adults, as a class, do not seem especially vulnerable or undervalued. 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