Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
Since the change had not been made at the time of the case Mr. Vriend did not receive compensation, meaning the university technically broke no laws nor violated the constitution. Even so the Albertan provincial government's IRPA must change Section 7(1) to allow sexual orientation as a minority right.
The Supreme Court ruled that there should be a reflection and remedy to the Albertan IRPA specifically section 7(1). Also you cannot omit or use an omission as defence under section 32 CRF.
Was the termination of Mr. Vriend legal and constitutional under section 15(1) of the charter?
Does section 1 of the charter allow the limitation of sexuality in Alberta?
Does section 7(1) IRPA violate section 15(1) CRF and can you omit certain minorities?
Appellants' Arguments:
IRPA (Individual Rights Protection Act) Section 7(1)
CRF Section 15(1) Applies
Respondents' Arguments:
CRF Section 1 Sets reasonable limits the charter
IRPA Section 7(1) Does not specifically protect sexual orientation
"Mr. Vriend was fired because the college had become aware that he was gay"
Vriend v. Alberta, 1994 CanLII 8949 (AB QB) - 1994-04-12