Law 2101 - Canadian Human Rights Law

Front 1

According to McIntire J. in Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, when is discrimination particularly repugnant?

1) When it takes place in a democratic society
2) When it is reinforced by law
3) When it is directed at non-Canadians
4) When it is on the basis of race

Back 1

3) When it is directed at non-Canadians

Front 2

An employer has a duty to accommodate an employee:

1) As long as the necessary workplace facilities exist
2) As long as it does not affect other employees' rights
3) As long as it does not cost the company anything
4) As long as it does not impose undue hardship on the employer

Back 2

4) As long as it does not impose undue hardship on the employer.

Front 3

Did anti-discrimination legislation exist in Canada prior to World War II?

Back 3

No, it did not.

Front 4

Which of the following is NOT a protected ground under the Ontario Human Rights Code?

1) Economic status
2) Creed
3) Marital status
4) Family status

Back 4

1) Economic Status

Front 5

True or False:
An employer may justify a bona fide occupational requirement by establishing:
(1) that the employer adopted the standard for a purpose rationally connected to the performance of the job;
(2) that the employer adopted the particular standard in an honest and good faith belief that it was necessary to the fulfilment of that legitimate work-related purpose; and
(3) that the standard is reasonably necessary to accomplish that legitimate work-related purpose.

Back 5

True.

Front 6

What was the first province to enact the fair practices in 1951?

Back 6

Ontario

Front 7

Which jurisdiction does the Canadian Human Rights Act and the CHRC apply to?

Back 7

All federal departments, agencies and Crown Corporations, as well as federally regulated business and industries (ex. banking, transportation and communication)

Front 8

What is the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) responsible for?

Back 8

The CHRT is responsible for hearing and deciding cases that cannot be settled through conciliation.

Front 9

True or False:
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal enjoys organizational independence from the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Back 9

True

Front 10

What happened in the case Troy v. Kemmir Enterprises Inc.?

Back 10

Mr. Troy was a black man at a gas station and the police officers were called because the gas station attendant thought there was a drug deal or attempted robbery was about to take place. Troy received 2 letters of apology. He submitted a complaint to the Commission but it did not proceed and the case was closed based on the police's investigation and the fact that Petro Canada looked into the situation and provided Troy with letters of apology. There was also no connection between Troy's race and the police phone call, it was made because of Troy's mannerisms, not because of his race.

Front 11

What happened in the Meiorin case? (aka the BCGSEU case)

Back 11

Ms. Meiorin failed to meet the aerobics standardized test and thought that because of women's physical capabilities the test was unfair towards women. It was concluded that the aerobic standard is prima facie discriminatory, and the Government has not shown that it is reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of the Government's general purpose, which is to identify those forest firefighters who are able to work safely and efficiently. The code accordingly prevents the Government from relying on the aerobic standard as the basis for Ms. Meiorin's dismissal. The appeal was allowed.

Front 12

What happened in the 407 ETR Concession Co. v. CAW-Canada Local 414 case?

Back 12

Three grievors refused to use a biometric scanning system due to their religious beliefs. Their union filed a grievance alleging discrimination based on creed. If the union is able to demonstrate that it was not adequately consulted on the accommodation process despite having reasonable proposals for the company to consider, its case will be much stronger at arbitration.

Front 13

What happened in the Vancouver Police Board and Teamsters, Loc. 31 (James) case?

Back 13

Christine James had suffered from a bi-polar disorder and this resulted in an attempted suicide with a gun that she stole while at work. She indicated an interest to return to work but the Police Board refused to let her saying that there were no appropriate positions. The union filed a grievance on her behalf, alleging discrimination based on a disability contrary to the collective agreement. The Arbitrator concluded that the safety risks were minimal and reinstatement would not cause undue hardship. The grievor was reinstated, under the condition that she continued to have regular appointments with her treating physician and that she abstained from addictive substances.