Section 15 of the Charter
39 views | +0 today
Follow
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by kalenamarie
Scoop.it!

Section 15 (Equality Rights)

Section 15 (Equality Rights) | Section 15 of the Charter | Scoop.it

Section 15 of the charter has to do with equality rights. Each person of society has the right to equal protect and benifits withouth being discriminated against. Types of discrimination include; religion, sex, race, age, ect.

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by kalenamarie
Scoop.it!

Egan v. Canada (Precedence)

This case shows precedence for gay rights activists even though the case was dismissed. Because of this case the courts amended the charter and also the old age act to include equality rights for same sex couples. Now there will be minimal problems for similar cases in the future. 

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by kalenamarie
Scoop.it!

Egan v. Canada (Appeal Court)

The case was dismissed in appeal court when the majority of the judges agreed that section 2 of the Old Age Act defines "spouse" without discriminating against sexual orientation. With a dis missle of the trial from a 2-1 vote by the judges, Egan then took the matter to supreme court.

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by kalenamarie
Scoop.it!

Egan v. Canada

James Egan and John Norris were a gay couple who had been in a cunjugal relationship since 1948. In 1986 when James Egan reached the age of 65 he became eligibal to recieve old age security and guaranteed income suppliments from the government under the "old age security act". The act states that the spouse of the pensioner may recieve an allowence aswell (as long as the combined income stays below a certain amount). When John Norris applied for this he was denied of the spousal allowance because section 2 of the old age act did not include a member of the same sex. Egan and Norris claimed that this was against their equality rights(section 15 in the charter).

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by kalenamarie
Scoop.it!

Vriend v. Alberta (Precedence)

This case has set precedence in the courts for future sexual orientation cases and also cases that have to do with provinces human rights acts. It has also changed the human rights laws in alberta, making future discriminations against sexual orientation illegal.

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by kalenamarie
Scoop.it!

Vriend v. Alberta (Supreme Court)

Vriend v. Alberta (Supreme Court) | Section 15 of the Charter | Scoop.it

The vote was 7:1 (having one judge leave the case), the majority voted in favour of Delwin Vriend. Mr.Justice Jack Major expressed his opinion on the minority side. In his opinion he thought that provinces should be able to repair the Act on their own. He did however agree that the exclusion of sexual orientation violated the charter.

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by kalenamarie
Scoop.it!

Vriend v. Alberta (Appeal Court)

Vriend v. Alberta (Appeal Court) | Section 15 of the Charter | Scoop.it

July 15th 1996- The appeal court has ruled against Vriend with a ratio of 2:1. the majourity stated that the exclusion of sexual orientation fromt he Individual Rights Protection Act was not a violation. To violate the Act the cival rights act must be dependent on a perfect imitaion of the charter. 

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by kalenamarie
Scoop.it!

Vriend v. Alberta

Vriend v. Alberta | Section 15 of the Charter | Scoop.it

Delwin Vriend was dismissed from his position as a lab coordinator at King's College since 1988. Kings is a private religious college in Edmonton, Alberta. in 1990 he let the principal of the school know he was gay, in 1991 they then asked Vriend to resign from his postion because it was stated that homosexuality was contrary to thier religion. After Vriend refused to step down the school then terminated his position.

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by kalenamarie
Scoop.it!

Egan v. Canada (Individual or Society?)

In this case it is hard to say whether it was individual or society rights. The trial was dismissed, making it not individual rights, but it wasnt dismissed for the good of the public it was dismissed only because the court didnt see any discrimination stated in the old age act. In my opinion i believe this would be society rights because the courts changed the old age act to be more respectful towards same sex couples. This would effect more then just one couple it would effect many of people in society with same sex relationships.

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by kalenamarie
Scoop.it!

Egan v. Canada (Supreme Court/Reasoning)

The vote for this case was a 4-1-4, this type of vote may occure when one or more judges have a concurring vote. A concurring vote is a vote that agrees with the majority but for different reasons. Because of the concurring vote the case was dismissed, mainly because most judges agreed that the definition of spouses was not defined in a discriminating way. However the concurring vote thought that there should also be some flexibility in extending social benifits.

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by kalenamarie
Scoop.it!

Egan v. Canada (Lower Court)

Durring this trial it was stated that the Act was a distinction between spouses and non-spouses, and had nothing too do with sexual orientation. Therefore the trial was dismissed. The decision was then appealed.

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by kalenamarie
Scoop.it!

Vriend v. Alberta (Individual Rights)

Vriend v. Alberta (Individual Rights) | Section 15 of the Charter | Scoop.it

This case was made in favour of individual rights. This is because even thought many citizens in society to not believe or are against certain types of sexual orientation the law must protect indivuals of their equality rights. It should not matter what type of sexual orientation a person is to be accepted in society. In the case of Delwin Vriend, his job should not have been terminated because of his sexual orientation. 

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by kalenamarie
Scoop.it!

Vriend v. Alberta (Majority)

The members who voted majority voted this way because they felt as though the Act of Alberta was violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Every person of this country should have the right to equality and in Vriends case he was deprived of his rights.  Justice Peter Croy who voted in favour of Delwin Vriend said "The exclusion [of gays and lesbians] sends a message to all Albertans that it is permissible and perhaps even acceptable, to discriminate against individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation...Perhaps most important is the psychological harm which may ensure from this state of affairs. Fear of discrimination will logically lead to concealment of true identity, and this must be harmful to personal confidence and self-esteem." This statement shows the reasons why most members of the majority voted against Alberta's Individual Rights Protection Act.

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by kalenamarie
Scoop.it!

Vriend v. Alberta (Supreme Court)

The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Vriend and said that the Individual Rights Protection Act violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by kalenamarie
Scoop.it!

Vriend v. Alberta (Lower Court)

Vriend v. Alberta (Lower Court) | Section 15 of the Charter | Scoop.it

The verdict is in, Madame Justice Anne Russel ruled in favour of Delwin Vriend. Althought, the redrafting of Alberta's human rights act was rejected when redrafted to include gay rights.

more...
No comment yet.