Introducing 

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Loading…
Transcript
  • Mr. Vriend was fired from King's College in Alberta
  • The only reason was that he was homosexual
  • He could not make a complaint!
  • Took it to the court of Queen's bench- they agreed the IRPA (Individual's rights protection act) was unconstitutional
  • After appealing the decision was reversed!
  • Vriend took it to the supreme court
  • Individual's rights protection act of Alberta is the main law
  • Section 7 is the section that covers discrimination in the workplace
  • It doesn't cover sexual orientation as a basis for discrimination!
  • Therefore Vriend doesn't have a case

So basically

  • Vriend gets fired for being a homosexual
  • He takes it to the Queen's bench of Alberta
  • They give him an appeal! YAY!
  • After appealing to Alberta court, the decision is reversed! What?!
  • Vriend appeals to supreme court, they decide that IRPA has breached equality provisions of the charter

Conclusion:

  • Case revealed a conflict in a document that effects many other employees in Alberta
  • Presents another example of how the Oakes tests can assist in Canadian cases

Vriend Vs. Alberta

The oakes test:

Does it pass?

  • The matter was pressing
  • The infringement was connected with the laws purpose
  • It was proportional to the objective
  • So yes it does pass!

Contradictions?

  • Law in IRPA contradicts section 15 of the charter, dealing with discrimination
  • In the charter it mentions sexual orientation as a possible ground for discrimination

Why doesn't Vriend have a case against his employer?

Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi