Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Vriend v Alberta [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493 is an important Supreme Court of Canada case that determined that a legislative omission can be the subject of a Charter violation. The case involved a dismissal of a teacher because of his sexual orientation and was an issue of great controversy during that period.
Schmidt is a civil rights case, pre-Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The key question is whether there was an illegal expression of discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs, contrary to the Alberta Individual Rights Protection Act, 1972 (Individual's Rights Protection Act, 1972 (Alta.), c.2, s.3(b) - School Act, R.S.A. 1970, c. 329, ss. 53,142, 143).
Alberta, [14] the claim was that the exclusion of 'sexual orientation' as a prohibited ground of discrimination in the Alberta Individual Rights Protection Act amounted to discrimination. To understand if this omission treated homosexuals differently from other vulnerable groups, they would need to be compared to just such groups.
Alberta, who finally ruled in 1998 that provincial governments could not exclude protection of individuals from human rights legislation on the basis of sexual orientation. [4] Despite popular misunderstanding, [5] the Vriend case was not against The King's College, and Vriend never pursued a human rights complaint against the institution. The ...
The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously held that the Alberta Individual Rights Protection Act treated lesbians and gay men in a discriminatory fashion and denied them equal protection and equal benefit of the law. This discrimination could not be reasonable justified in a free and democratic society. Vriend v. Alberta - Supreme Court of Canada
Alberta, brought before the Supreme Court of Canada in 1997 and decided in 1998, with the unanimous decision that "the exclusion of homosexuals from Alberta's Individual Rights Protection Act is a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms". [11] [12]
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
The section is also known as the reasonable limits clause or limitations clause, as it legally allows the government to limit an individual's Charter rights. This limitation on rights has been used in the last twenty years to prevent a variety of objectionable conduct such as child pornography (e.g., in R v Sharpe ), [ 1 ] hate speech (e.g., in ...