Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v Etobicoke (Borough of)

Last updated
Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v Etobicoke (Borough of)

Supreme Court of Canada 2.jpg

Hearing: May 13, 1981
Judgment: February 9, 1982
Full case nameThe Ontario Human Rights Commission and Bruce Dunlop and Harold E Hall and Vincent Gray v The Borough of Etobicoke
Citations [1982] 1 S.C.R. 202
Ruling OHRC appeal allowed
Court Membership
Chief Justice: Bora Laskin
Puisne Justices: Ronald Martland, Roland Ritchie, Brian Dickson, Jean Beetz, Willard Estey, William McIntyre, Julien Chouinard, Antonio Lamer
Reasons given
Unanimous reasons by McIntyre J.

Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v Etobicoke (Borough of), [1982] 1 S.C.R. 202 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on age discrimination. Several firemen challenged a mandatory retirement policy under the Ontario Human Rights Code. The Court found that the employer did not sufficiently justify the policy as a bona fide occupational requirement.

Supreme Court of Canada highest court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada, the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts. Its decisions are the ultimate expression and application of Canadian law and binding upon all lower courts of Canada, except to the extent that they are overridden or otherwise made ineffective by an Act of Parliament or the Act of a provincial legislative assembly pursuant to section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Contents

Background

Harold Hall and Vincent Gray were firemen in the borough of Etobicoke, Ontario. As part of the collective agreement between the borough and the union, all firefighters were required to retire at the age of 60. When Hall and Grey were forced to retire they brought a complaint for age discrimination under section 4(1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code which prohibited discrimination in recruitment or dismissal based on age among other grounds.

Etobicoke Place in Ontario, Canada

Etobicoke is an administrative district and former city that makes up the western part of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Etobicoke was first settled by Europeans in the 1790s; the municipality grew into city status in the 20th century. Several independent villages and towns developed within the area of Etobicoke, only to be absorbed later into Etobicoke during the era of Metro Toronto. Etobicoke was dissolved in 1998, when it was amalgamated with other Metro Toronto municipalities into the City of Toronto. Etobicoke is bordered on the south by Lake Ontario, on the east by the Humber River, on the west by Etobicoke Creek, the city of Mississauga, and Toronto Pearson International Airport, and on the north by Steeles Avenue West.

The respondents defended their actions by arguing that the rule was a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR). Namely, that the rule was required to maintain an acceptable standard for firefighting.

In the Ontario Divisional Court, it was held that the policy was a BFOR and so did not violate section 4(1) of the Code.

Reasons of the court

Justice McIntyre, writing for the unanimous Court, overturned the lower court decision and found that the policy was not justified. He noted that an employee or union cannot waive their rights under the Code through collective agreements. The standard to meet to establish a BFOR must be an objective one that is supported by concrete evidence. McIntyre found that the evidence presented was weak and did not sufficiently justify the requirement.

See also

Related Research Articles

Good faith, in human interactions, is a sincere intention to be fair, open, and honest, regardless of the outcome of the interaction. While some Latin phrases lose their literal meaning over centuries, this is not the case with bona fides; it is still widely used and interchangeable with its generally accepted modern-day English translation of good faith. It is an important concept within law and business. The opposed concepts are bad faith, mala fides (duplicity) and perfidy (pretense). In contemporary English, the usage of bona fides is synonymous with credentials and identity. The phrase is sometimes used in job advertisements, and should not be confused with the bona fide occupational qualifications or the employer's good faith effort, as described below.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 legislation

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a landmark civil rights and labor law in the United States that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It prohibits unequal application of voter registration requirements, and racial segregation in schools, employment, and public accommodations.

<i>R v Morgentaler</i>

R v Morgentaler, [1988] 1 SCR 30 was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which held that the abortion provision in the Criminal Code was unconstitutional because it violated a woman's right under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") to security of person. Since this ruling, there have been no criminal laws regulating abortion in Canada.

<i>McKinney v University of Guelph</i>

McKinney v University of Guelph [1990] 3 SCR 229 is the Supreme Court of Canada case that decided that, for the purpose of determining the application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, universities were not part of government. Therefore, the mandatory retirement age for university teachers did not violate equality rights under section 15 of the Charter. In reaching this holding, the Court refined the scope of the Charter as it applies to government bodies as well as the definition of "law" within the ambit of the Charter.

<i>British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v British Columbia Government Service Employees Union</i>

British Columbia v British Columbia Government Service Employees' Union [1999] 3 SCR 3, 1999 SCC 48 – called Meiorin for short – is a Supreme Court of Canada case that created a unified test to determine if a violation of human rights legislation can be justified as a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR).

Freedom of religion in Canada

Freedom of religion in Canada is a constitutionally protected right, allowing believers the freedom to assemble and worship without limitation or interference.

<i>Law v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)</i>

Law v Canada , [1999] 1 SCR 497 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision. The ruling is notable because the court created the Law test, a significant new tool that has since been used by Canadian courts for determining the validity of equality right claims under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, the Law test has since been discredited by the Supreme Court.

<i>Bliss v Canada (AG)</i>

Bliss v Canada (AG) [1979] 1 S.C.R. 183 is a famous Supreme Court of Canada decision on equality rights for women under the Canadian Bill of Rights. The Court held that women were not entitled to benefits denied to them by the Unemployment Insurance Act during a certain period of pregnancy. This case has since become the prime example demonstrating the inadequacies of the Canadian Bill of Rights in protecting individuals' rights. This ruling was eventually overturned in Brooks v. Canada Safeway Ltd., [1989] 1 SCR 1219.

LGBT rights in Canada

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights in Canada are some of the most advanced in the Americas and in the world. Same-sex sexual activity has been lawful in Canada since June 27, 1969, when the Criminal Law Amendment Act came into force upon royal assent.

<i>Central Alberta Dairy Pool v Alberta (Human Rights Commission)</i>

Central Alberta Dairy Pool v Alberta , [1990] 2 SCR 489, is a leading human rights law decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court expanded on the concept of accommodation up to undue hardship first established in Ontario v Simpsons-Sears Ltd, [1985] 2 SCR 536 and provided a set of factors to consider when evaluating undue hardship.

<i>Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v Simpsons-Sears Ltd</i>

Ontario v Simpsons-Sears Ltd, [1985] 2 SCR 536 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court first acknowledged the existence of indirect discrimination through conduct that creates prejudicial effect.

<i>British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v British Columbia (Council of Human Rights)</i> leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on human rights law

British Columbia v British Columbia , [1999] 3 S.C.R. 868, known as the Grismer Estate case, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on human rights law. The Court held that the British Columbia Superintendent of Motor Vehicles was in violation of the provincial Human Rights Code for cancelling the driver's licence of Terry Grismer because he had a visual disability.

In employment law, a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) (US) or bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR) (Canada) or genuine occupational qualification (GOQ) (UK) is a quality or an attribute that employers are allowed to consider when making decisions on the hiring and retention of employees—a quality that when considered in other contexts would constitute discrimination and thus be in violation of civil rights employment law. Such qualifications must be listed in the employment offering.

Ohio Civil Rights Commission v. Dayton Christian Schools, Inc., 477 U.S. 619 (1986), reversed a lower court's decision and stated that the lower court should not have heard the case until after the Ohio Civil Rights Commission had concluded their investigation. The Commission argued that the non-renewal and firing constituted unlawful sex discrimination, while the school argued that this was an ecclesiastical matter not suitable for review by civil authorities.

Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 400 U.S. 542 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer may not, in the absence of business necessity, refuse to hire women with pre-school-age children while hiring men with such children. It was the first sex discrimination case under Title VII to reach the Court.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario is an administrative tribunal in Ontario, Canada that hears and determines applications brought under the Ontario Human Rights Code, the provincial statute that sets out human or civil rights in Ontario prohibiting discrimination on the basis of a number of grounds in certain social areas.

Justine Blainey-Broker was a Canadian women's ice hockey player for the Toronto Lady Blues women's ice hockey program. Prior to playing for the Lady Blues, she had gone to the Ontario Court of Appeal in 1986 as part of a discrimination lawsuit regarding the Metro Toronto Hockey League.

This article gives a broad overview of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) history in Canada. For a timeline of notable events in the history of the LGBT community in Canada see Timeline of LGBT history in Canada.

Young v. United Parcel Service, 575 U.S. ___ (2015), is a United States Supreme Court case that the Court evaluated the requirements for bringing a disparate treatment claim under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that to bring such a claim, a pregnant employee must show that their employer refused to provide accommodations and that the employer later provided accommodations to other employees with similar restrictions. The Court then remanded the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to determine whether the employer engaged in discrimination under this new test.

United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc. 499 U.S. 187 (1991), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States establishing that private sector policies prohibiting women from knowingly working in potentially hazardous occupations are discriminatory and in violation of Title VII and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. The case revolved around Johnson Controls' policy of excluding fertile women from working in battery manufacturing jobs because batteries contain high amounts of lead, which entails health risks to people's reproductive systems and fetuses. At the time the case was heard, it was considered one of the most important sex-discrimination cases since the passage of Title VII.