Articles 2022

A court may decline to hear constitutional issues raised for the first time on appeal or raised in the wrong way. While a court may exercise its discretion to overlook procedural missteps, it is risky to rely on such an exercise of discretion. It continues to be important to consider any potential constitutional arguments early on and identify the appropriate forum in which to raise them. Three recent cases illustrate the issue.

Case comment on Pereria v. Humber River Hospital (2015 HRTO 1340).

This brief paper explores damages in lieu of reinstatement in the context of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. The Tribunal has never ordered these damages previously, and the failure to award damages in lieu of reinstatement where an employment relationship is not viable compounds the harm experienced by victims of discrimination. This is particular so where the relationship has broken down through no fault of the applicant.

Geri Sanson outlines the biggest human rights cases of note in 2014-2015.

Why are applicants overlooking the possible remedy of prospective future lost wages? This article takes a look at recent HRTO decisions that shed some light on the availability - or lack thereof - of this potentially useful remedial device for discrimination cases.

A discussion of the new emerging test for family status discrimination - and the related potential for damages - in Ontario.

Twenty-one years after Rodriguez v. British Columbia (AG), the Supreme Court revisited the issue in Carter v. Canada (AG). Henri briefly discusses the Court’s conclusions with respect to s. 7 and s. 1 of the Charter, and the remedy.

Against the very recent debates in global media on how far freedom of speech should be protected, this article takes a look at this right in a Canadian context. Using Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v Whatcott, the author reveals the interesting interplay fundamental freedom of speech and the limitations posed on this freedom by hate speech legislation.

This article takes a look at the scope and nature of current laws on intervening as a friend of the Court in light of the Trinity Western University v Law Society of Upper Canada proceedings.