Christian Baillargeon

The Court clarified the two-step framework for proving discrimination under s. 10 of the Quebec Charter and held that prima facie discrimination must be proven on a balance of probabilities.

It found insufficient evidence connecting the U.S. security-clearance refusal to Mr. Latif’s ethnic or national origin, making the tribunal’s finding unreasonable.

Both appeals were dismissed, with costs as ordered.

The respondent applied for employment as a police officer but was rejected because she had previously pleaded guilty to shoplifting and received a conditional discharge, despite having been pardoned under the Criminal Records Act.

The employer argued she did not meet the 'good moral character' requirement.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that a statutory pardon is a 'pardon' within the meaning of s. 18.2 of the Quebec Charter of human rights and freedoms, which protects against employment discrimination based on a pardoned criminal conviction.

The Court found that the employer rejected the application based solely on the finding of guilt without conducting a further inquiry to counter the presumption that the pardon had restored her moral integrity, thereby violating the Charter.

The complainant, while on maternity leave, was denied social assistance benefits under the APPORT program because her employment insurance benefits were not considered income from employment.

She filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination based on sex and pregnancy.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Human Rights Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute.

The essential character of the dispute concerned eligibility for benefits under the Income Security Act, over which the Commission des affaires sociales has exclusive jurisdiction, including the authority to apply the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

The teachers' unions entered into a modification of a collective agreement with the province that affected a minority group composed primarily of younger and less experienced teachers.

The younger teachers complained to the Human Rights Commission that the agreement discriminated against them, violating the equality guarantee of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

The Commission brought the matter before the Human Rights Tribunal.

The respondents filed a motion asking the Tribunal to decline jurisdiction on the ground that the labour arbitrator possessed exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Human Rights Tribunal had jurisdiction over the dispute, as the essential character of the dispute engaged matters pertaining more to alleged discrimination in the formation and validity of the agreement than to its interpretation and application.

The employee was dismissed after failing to report to work because he was incarcerated for a criminal offence unrelated to his employment.

He filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination based on his criminal record under s. 18.2 of the Quebec Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 18.2 protects against unjustified social stigma arising from a prior conviction, but does not protect an employee from the civil consequences of a lawfully imposed sentence, such as unavailability for work due to incarceration.

The appeal was dismissed.