comm 315 Midterm 1 Cases Essay

Submitted By jaspal90
Words: 768
Pages: 4

Religious freedom entails that when a claimant sincerely believes in a practice of religion. If the religious freedom right is triggered then court must decide whether the exercise of the right infringes the freedom of religion. Under S.3 of the Qc Charter every person possesses fundamental rights which include the freedom of practicing his or her religion. Under S.9.1 the freedom and rights are limited to the scope provided by the law.
The co-owners have the right to personal security under S.1 and the right to peaceful enjoyment of property to the extent provided by law under S.6 (Case: Syndicat Northcrest vs. Amselem)
Discrimination is distinguishing between people based on certain criterias described in S.10. It states that every person has equal human rights & freedom without distinction to race, sex, colour, age, etc. Discrimination not limited to S.10 because under S.50 you cannot suppress any human rights. No one can refuse a judicial act (contract) with someone based on discrimination under S.12.
Reverse discrimination: Unfair treatment of members of majority group. Especially due to the fact that affirmative action is taken help the minority that the majority is being discriminated against due to such policies. An example would be that a percentage is filled for an ethnic minority instead of following the minimum required standard. (Case: Brutter vs. Bollinger)
Affirmative action: Policies giving preference to minority groups. Under S.18.1 you are not required to disclose confidential information determined in S.10 unless it is required for the employment under S.20 a distinction based on aptitude or qualifications. (Case: Grutter vs. Bollinger)
In the Case: Therrien vs. Minister he rec’d a pardon for a criminal offence and so he argued S.18.2 that you cannot fire or refuse to hire someone who has rec’d a pardon. Under S.18 you do not have to give information regarding to S.10 unless it is required by the employment. In the case the Supreme court defined judicial office not being employment. Under S.20 the qualification for a judicial office is to not have any past records despite the fact that a pardon was rec’d. In this case it is determined that judicial office must set a higher standard and the public confidence is effected since Therrien did not disclose relevant information. Therrien lost the case in Supreme court.
Case: BC Union (fire fighter) vs. BC Govt is about whether the BC govt’s standard for aerobic is unfair to women in fire fighting jobs. There is no direct discrimination, however an adverse discrimination effect is on the victim Meiorin. She establishes a prima facie case showing that aerobic standard has a negative effect on women therefore the burden is on the employer to prove otherwise. Employer must establish a BONA FIDE OCCUPATIONAL REQUIREMENT based on the following:
1) standard is connected to the job
2) standard is in good faith
3) standard is reasonably necessary and without it