External links
- Full text of Supreme Court of Canada decision at LexUM and CanLII
  | This article about Canadian law is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
| Robichaud v Canada (Treasury Board) | |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of Canada |
| Decided | [1987] 2 S.C.R. 84 |
| Citation(s) | [1987] 2 S.C.R. 84 |
| Case history | |
| Subsequent action(s) | The Supreme Court found that a corporation can be held liable for the discriminatory conduct of its employees acting "in the course of their employment" and that the employer is in the best position to remedy such conduct. |
| Case opinions | |
| A corporation can be found liable for the discriminatory conduct of its employees who are acting "in the course of their employment." Liability is necessary as the employer is best positioned to remedy the discriminatory conduct. | |
Robichaud v Canada (Treasury Board), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 84 is a leading case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada on sexual harassment under the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Court found that a corporation can be found liable for the discriminatory conduct of its employees who are acting "in the course of their employment." It also found it necessary to impose liability, as the employer is the only one that is in the position to remedy the discriminatory conduct.
| | This article about Canadian law is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
In law, standing or locus standi is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. A party has standing in the following situations:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, often simply referred to as the Charter in Canada, is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada, forming the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Charter guarantees certain political rights to Canadian citizens and civil rights of everyone in Canada from the policies and actions of all governments in Canada. It is designed to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody those rights. The Charter was proclaimed in force by Queen Elizabeth II of Canada on April 17, 1982, as part of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Egan v Canada, [1995] 2 SCR 513 was one of a trilogy of equality rights cases published by a very divided Supreme Court of Canada in the spring of 1995. It stands today as a landmark Supreme Court case which established that sexual orientation constitutes a prohibited basis of discrimination under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Canadian Human Rights Act is a statute passed by the Parliament of Canada in 1977 with the express goal of extending the law to ensure equal opportunity to individuals who may be victims of discriminatory practices based on a set of prohibited grounds.
Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section that confirms that the rights listed in the Charter are guaranteed. 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, hate speech, and obscenity.
Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada. There are three types of protection within the section: the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Denials of these rights are constitutional only if the denials do not breach what is referred to as fundamental justice.
Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains guaranteed equality rights. As part of the Constitution of Canada, the section prohibits certain forms of discrimination perpetrated by the governments of Canada with the exception of ameliorative programs.
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 is a constitutionally protected right, allowing believers the freedom to assemble and worship without limitation or interference.
Section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Canadian Constitution that protects the mobility rights of Canadian citizens, and to a lesser extent that of permanent residents. By mobility rights, the section refers to the individual practice of entering and exiting Canada, and moving within its boundaries. The section is subject to the section 1 Oakes test, but cannot be nullified by the notwithstanding clause.
Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v Canada (Minister of Justice) [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1120, 2000 SCC 69 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on freedom of expression and equality rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was held that the Customs Act, which gave broad powers to customs inspectors to exclude "obscene" materials, violated the right to freedom of expression under section 2 but was justifiable under section 1.
R v Drybones, [1970] S.C.R. 282, is a landmark 6-3 Supreme Court of Canada decision holding that the Canadian Bill of Rights "empowered the courts to strike down federal legislation which offended its dictates." Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Canada held that section 94(b) of the Indian Act is inoperative because it violates section 1(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights.
Christopher Stephen Myles Kempling is a Canadian educator who was suspended by the British Columbia College of Teachers and disciplined by the Quesnel School District for anti-gay comments in letters to the editor of the Quesnel Cariboo Observer. Kempling challenged the suspension in court, arguing that his right to freedom of expression had been violated. The British Columbia Court of Appeal ruled against him, ruling that limitations on his freedom of expression were justified by the school's duty to maintain a tolerant and discrimination-free environment. Kempling filed a complaint with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal alleging that the disciplinary action taken against him by the school district infringed his freedom of religion; this complaint was dismissed on similar grounds.
Canada (AG) v Mossop, [1993] 1 SCR 554 was the first decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to consider equality rights for gays. The case is also significant as one of Justice L'Heureux-Dube's most famous dissents where she proposes an evolving model of the "family".
Ontario v Simpsons-Sears Ltd, [1985] 2 SCR 536 is a leading decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, which first acknowledged the existence of indirect discrimination through conduct that creates prejudicial effect.
Scowby v Glendinning, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 226 is a leading federalism decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Saskatchewan provincial Human Rights Act was found not to apply to potentially discriminatory conduct that was acted as part of criminal law enforcement.
Terrence Cecil Tremaine is the founder and national director of the National-Socialist Party of Canada. He is a white nationalist organizer who has posted on white nationalist web forums such as Stormfront and other websites using the screen name "mathdoktor99", and on other websites as "JCMateri".
Nova Scotia (AG) v Walsh, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 325 was a leading case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada on section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and matrimonial property. The Court held that the Nova Scotia Matrimonial Property Act, which excluded unmarried cohabitating couples, was not in violation of the section 15 equality guarantee.
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is an administrative tribunal established in 1977 through the Canadian Human Rights Act. It is directly funded by the Parliament of Canada and is independent of the Canadian Human Rights Commission which refers cases to it for adjudication under the act.
Hate speech laws in Canada include provisions in the federal Criminal Code, as well as statutory provisions relating to hate publications in three provinces and one territory.