Photo: flickr/Cristian Ungureanu

By Sahani Samarappuli

Reposted from ABlawg with permission.

Case Commented On: United Nurses of Alberta v Alberta Health Services, 2019 ABQB 255 (CanLII)

As noted in previous posts (see here), the definition of discrimination on the basis of family status has been extended recently to include recognition of childcare responsibilities (see e.g. Canada (Attorney General) v Johnstone, 2014 FCA 110 (CanLII), SMS Equipment v Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, 2015 ABQB 162 (CanLII), both cases discussed below). However, the point at which employers’ duty to accommodate is triggered remains controversial. In particular, the question remains as to how a complainant’s duty of self-accommodation should be dealt with in the discrimination analysis.

Read More

Photo: flickr/thierry ehrmann

By Linda McKay-Panos

Reposted from LawNow 43(4) with permission.

Recently, extradition has been front and centre in our news cycle (see: CBC, January 22, 2019 “China accuses U.S., Canada of abusing extradition in Huawei case”). There are very important human rights aspects to the process of extradition. These are critical to our democracy and the rule of law. For example, if another nation involved in the extradition seeks to punish or otherwise persuade Canada by imprisoning Canadians, this is not respectful of the rule of law and cannot affect how we perform the extradition process.

Read More

Photo: flickr/Patsincharco

By Myrna El Fakhry Tuttle

Reposted from LawNow 43(5) with permission.

Employee alcohol and drug addictions in the workplace can be very difficult issues for employers to manage. Addiction is recognized as a mental disability, which means that employers cannot automatically terminate employees because of their addiction. On the contrary, employers are required to accommodate those employees to the point of undue hardship.

Read More

Photo: flickr/Tim Henderschott

By Linda McKay-Panos

Reposted from LawNow 43(5) with permission.

Recently, Quebec Premier François Legault’s government introduced Bill 21 (An Act Respecting the Laicity [Secularism] of the State). Among other things, the Act prohibits public workers in positions of authority (e.g., teachers, police officers, prison guards, Crown prosecutors, government lawyers and judges) from wearing religious symbols (not defined in the Act, but presumably would include turbans, kippahs, crucifixes, hijabs, clerical collars, etc.).

Read More

Photo: flickr/[US Embassy Canada]

By Myrna El Fakhry Tuttle

 Reposted from LawNow 43(4) with permission.

The right to be protected from persecution is an international human right. Under Canada’s immigration laws, a person in Canada can claim status as a Convention Refugee or as a Person in Need of Protection.

Read More

Photo: flickr/[Alana Post]

By Myrna El Fakhry Tuttle

Reposted from LawNow 43(4) with permission.

Requesting medical information from employees may raise privacy issues. Employees have the right to keep their medical information confidential and private. But employers also have the right to know about their employees’ illness or disability, and have the right to seek medical information in order to provide appropriate accommodation. So, how can we balance the two?

Read More

Photo:flickr/[whitesun12]

By Myrna El Fakhry Tuttle

On January 4, 2019, Madam Justice Dawn Pentelechuk found that Mr. Ryan Prystay’s lengthy stay in administrative segregation at the Edmonton Remand Centre breached section 12 of the Charter. Consequently, she granted him enhanced credit of 3.75 days for each day spent in administrative segregation.

Read More

Photo: flickr/[RCMP Musical Ride—Sunset Ceremonies]

by Rowan Hickie

In the wake of the #MeToo movement, mainstream awareness surrounding workplace harassment and bullying has expanded beyond the borders of Hollywood. One such workplace that has seen increased awareness of harassment has been the RCMP. While RCMP employees have been coming forward about the harassment and abuse they experienced in the workplace for many years, the past few years have seen not only an increase in the number of RCMP members coming forward and public awareness and interest in the issue, but also government and institutional response.

Read More

flickr/[USDA NRCS Montana]

In 1899, Treaty 8 was negotiated with several First Nations groups in Northern Alberta—North East Saskatchewan, Southwest parts of the Northwest Territories and later Eastern British Columbia—resulting in land surrender to the Crown. However, members of the Lubicon Lake Band were left out of the negotiations. This launched several decades of claims and disputes between Lubicon people and the federal and provincial governments. While the Lubicons continued to live in their traditional ways, the province of Alberta leased areas of the disputed lands for oil and gas development and provided permits for harvesting lumber using clear cut methods. These activities had negative impacts on the Lubicon people. The dispute became known across Canada and the world when Amnesty International and the United Nations became involved.

Read More