Table Of Content

Discrimination Law: Equality In The Private Sector 2003-2004 Volume 1 Professor Denise Reaume Faculty of Law University of Toronto Discrimination Law: Equality In The Private Sector 2003-2004 Volume 1 Professor Denise Resume I am grateful to Mark Hart and Geri Sanson for permission to use some of the ideas from their revised version of these materials in use at Osgoode Hall Law School, and to Carlin McGoogan, for his invaluable research assistance. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2018 with funding from University of Toronto https://archive.org/details/discriminationla01 raum_4 DISCRIMINATION LAW: EQUALITY IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR 2003-2004 Table of Contents PART I: BACKGROUND 1. THE EQUALITY DEBATE Charles Taylor, Multiculturalism and “the Politics of Recognition” 1 Iris Marion Young, Justice and the Politics of Difference 17 M G Crawford, “Human Rights Commissions Politically Correct Predators?”.24 2. CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION MODELS: Background and General Principles A. The Origins Of Discrimination Law R Brian Howe and David Johnson, Restraining Equality.31 B. The Administrative Model of Human Rights Protection R Brian Howe and David Johnson, Restraining Equality>. 43 Bell Canada v. Canadian Telephone Employees Association.60 Blencoe v. British Columbia (Human Rights Commission).68 C. The Status of Discrimination Law and Tribunals 1. Interpretive Principles Governing Discrimination Law W Tarnopolsky and W Pentney, Discrimination and the Law,. 71 C.N. i’. Canada, (Action Travail des Femmes).73 2. Judicial Review of Tribunal Decisions Pezin v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Brokers).74 Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop.74 David Dyzenhaus, “The Politics of Deference: Judicial Review and Democracy”. 85 PART II: THE STRUCTURE OF A DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT 3. OF PIGEONHOLES AND PRINCIPLES: THE GROUNDS AND SPHERES COVERED Note.95 Grounds of Discrimination: Nitya Iyer, “Categorical Denials: Equality Rights and the Shaping of Social Identity”.96 Egan v. Canada.108 Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop.113 Vnend v. Alberta.133 B. v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission).141 Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Vogue Shoes.149 Davison v. St Paid Lutheran Home of Melville, Sask.159 Quebec (Commission des droits) v. Boisbriand.162 Jubran v. Board of Trustees.165 Vancouver Rape Relief Society v. British Columbia .168 Spheres within which Discrimination is Prohibited Gould v. Yukon Order of Pioneers.174 4. DEFINING THE WRONG From Intention To Adverse Effect Note.195 William Black, “From Intent to Effect: New Standards in Human Rights”.196 Beatrice Vizkelety, Proving Discrimination in Canada.201 Griggs v. Duke Power Co.208 Ontario H. R. C. & Theresa O'Malley (Vincent) v. Simpsons-Sears (S.C.C.). 213 C. N.R. v. Canada (CndnH. R. C.) (Action Travail des Femmes).220 Limitations on the Rights not to be Discriminated Against i) Bona fide occupations requirements Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Borough of Etobicoke.222 ii Ill Brossard v. Quebec (Commission des droit de la personne) 225 Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Saskatoon (City) 234 ii) Reasonable Accommodation W Tarnopolsky and W Pentney, Discrimination and the Law 240 Central Alberta Dairy Pool v. Alberta (Human Rights Commission) 248 Large v. Stratford (City).260 Chambly, Commission Scolaire Regionale v. Beige vin 270 Howard v. University of British Columbia 275 Judith Keene, Human Rights in Ontario 282 Streamlining the Discrimination Analysis - A New Start Shelagh Day and Gwen Brodsky, “The Duty to Accommodate Who Will Benefit?”.286 B.C. (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU.308 B.C. (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v. B.C. (Council of Human Rights) 323