- 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?