IRAC ASSIGNMENT
Issue
Whether Human Rights Tribunal is the proper jurisdiction for Taylor to appeal her grade and discrimination claims.
Additionally, whether tailor is at liberty to launch numerous discrimination claims at the Human Rights Tribunal (one against Parker based on race, ethnic origin, and creed and one against A.B.C. on the failure of its duty to respect her academic accommodations and based on race, ethnic origin, and creed).
Rules
Provide a copy of the relevant statute sections, regulations and summarize the applicable case law.
The human rights tribunal is the best place for Taylor to launch her grade appeals and discrimination claims.
Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19
Section 5 of the human rights code prohibits any person from discriminating against another based on race or ethnicity.
Discrimination entails treating a person differently from the rest of the group, either due to their status, race, ethnicity, or other factors.
Discriminatory acts lead to low self-esteem on the aggrieved party and may interfere with their performance in whatever jurisdiction.
Discrimination also involves denying people their rights as provided by Canadian law and other applicable laws.
S12 provides that a person should not be discriminated against based on their association
S17 protects people from discrimination because of their disability. The section is clear that any form of disability should be treated with the seriousness it requires and that no person should be denied their rights as a disabled person.
Regulations
Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S., 1985, c. H-6 July 1996 (Canadian Human Rights Act.
1976-77, c. 33, s. 1.)
The regulation prohibits discrimination based on ethnic origin, disability, religion, sex, marital status, and others.
Case laws
Racial discrimination as outlined in Knibbs v. Brant Artillery Gunners Club, 2011 HRTO 1032
The hearing panel was to determine if Knibbs was demoted due to her race. During the demotion, Ms. Knibbs, who worked as a bartender, was on medical leave, and upon return, her employment contract was terminated. The panel determined that Ms. Knibbs was discriminated against because of her race.
The respondent had polluted the work environment, making it impossible for Ms. Knibbs to return successfully. The tribunal also found that the respondent did not consider accommodating Ms. Long for her temporal disability.
Discrimination based on disability Lauzon v. Ontario Provincial Police, 2011 HRTO 1404
In this case, the applicant was disabled, and they wanted to join the country’s police service. The applicant passed all the tests except that of vision. It was established that the applicant was visually impaired and could not see correctly.
The tribunal established after the hearings that the respondents did not meet the onus of demonstrating that the vision requirements they asked for from the applicant were reasonable to accomplish the role of the police service in Canada.
The onus was on the respondent to prove beyond reasonable doubt that that measurement of depth perception was indeed a prerequisite. It would be necessary for police recruits to pass this test if they were to perform well and achieve the goals of the police in Canada.
