Public Services

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the B.C. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles discriminated against Terry Grismer by refusing him a driver’s licence because he had homonymous hemianopia (H. H.) which eliminated most of his left side peripheral vision in both eyes.

Terry Grismer had a stroke in 1984 at age 40. As a result of the stroke, he suffered H.H. Persons with H.H. always have less than 120 degrees of peripheral vision and no person with H.H. is issued a driver’s licence in B.C. The Motor Vehicles Branch cancelled Grismer’s licence.

Grismer claimed that through the use of glasses with prisms, extra mirrors on his truck, and regular movement of his head, he could compensate for his disability and drive safely. He alleged that he was discriminated because he was not given an individual assessment. Instead, the simple fact that he had H.H. barred from having a driver’s licence.

Applying the new unified test that was fashioned in...

In a unanimous ruling the Supreme Court of Canada upholds the decision of a Board of Inquiry which ruled that the Board of School Trustees, District No. 15 discriminated with respect to a public service because it failed to take appropriate action against a teacher, Malcolm Ross, who made repeated public attacks on Jewish people.

David Attis, a Jewish parent, complained in 1988 that Malcolm Ross, a teacher in School District No. 15, publicly made racist and discriminatory comments about Jewish people during his off-duty time, and that this created a "poisoned environment" in the school district, negatively affecting the Jewish children and other minority students. Mr. Ross’s writings and statements communicating his anti-Semitic views included books, letters and interviews with local media. The Board of Inquiry found that, despite mounting complaints about Mr. Ross’s activities between 1978 and 1987, the School Board reprimanded Mr. Ross ineffectively, and, by its almost...

The Supreme Court of Canada rules that a refusal of membership in a men's organization is not a discriminatory denial of services contrary to the Yukon Human Rights Act.

The complainant Madeleine Gould had been refused membership in the Yukon Order of Pioneers because of her sex. She filed a complaint under the Act, which was heard by a Board of Adjudication. The Yukon Status of Women Council intervened in support of Gould's position. The Board of Adjudication ruled in favour of Gould based upon an Agreed Statement of Facts. The Board heard no testimony.

It was not disputed before the Board of Adjudication that the Order's action in rejecting Gould's application amounted to discrimination on the basis of sex contrary to s. 6(f) of the Act. The Board found that in preserving and collecting the literature and incidents of Yukon's history, the Order was "offering or providing services...to the public" and concluded that the discrimination...

This is an appeal by Judith Anne Ryan from a decision of the Court of Queen's Bench. The Court of Queen's Bench overturned a decision of a Board of Inquiry which ruled that Ms. Ryan was discriminated against because of her disability because the premises of the Collections Fine Art Gallery were not accessible to persons using wheelchairs.

Ms. Ryan filed a complaint in 1991 when she learned that renovations were being made to the Collections Fine Art Gallery but there were apparently no plans to make it accessible. The renovations had the effect of joining together two structures, to make a gallery and cafe complex which allowed customers to move from one to the other indoors.

The renovations were completed in compliance with the Uniform Building and Accessibility Standards Act and with permits issued by the City of Regina, but the building was not made accessible.

The Board of Inquiry found that the fact that the renovations complied with the...

The Supreme Court of Canada restores the decision of the B.C. Council of Human Rights and rules that the University of British Columbia discriminated against a student, Janice Berg, because of her mental disability when it refused her a rating sheet required for an application for a dietician's internship program and a key to university facilities.

Janice Berg was a student with an above-average academic record in the Master's program at the University of British Columbia's School of Family and Nutritional Sciences in 1979. She experienced recurring depression and one day in 1981 she wrote "I am dead" on the mirror in the School's washroom. Later the same day she was frightened by R.C.M.P. and security personnel in the hallway and attempted to jump through a plate glass window.

When the School moved to new premises in 1982 Ms. Berg was denied a key to the building, although graduate students were regularly issued keys so that they could use computer and research...

The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada finds that Zurich Insurance did not discriminate against Michael Bates contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code by charging him higher premiums for automobile insurance because of his age, sex, and marital status.

In 1983 Michael Bates alleged that he was discriminated against because Zurich Insurance charged him higher premiums for his automobile insurance than a young, single, female driver with the same driving record, or than drivers over age 25. He alleged that the rate classification system discriminated by grouping drivers by age, sex, and marital status and determining their premiums based on these factors.

The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada finds that charging higher automobile insurance premiums to young, unmarried, male drivers is prima facie discriminatory and contravenes the Ontario Human Rights Code. However, the issue in this appeal is whether that...

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal overturns the decisions of a Board of Inquiry and the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench which found that social assistance is not a public service within the meaning of s. 12 of The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code.

At issue here is a complaint filed by Murray Chambers alleging that he was discriminated against by the Saskatchewan Department of Social Services because of his marital status because he, as a childless unmarried person, was paid $55 a month less in social assistance than a childless married person.

The Board of Inquiry which initially heard the case and the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench ruled that social assistance was not a service offered to the public since it is only available to those who are eligible and not to the public at large.

The Court of Appeal finds that social assistance is a service offered to the public. Social assistance is a program of general application. The existence of...