5,484
edits
Difference between revisions of "BC Human Rights Code (6:III)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) |
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 115: | Line 115: | ||
Discrimination need not be intentional. Any policy or action that has an adverse effect on a protected group might be considered discriminatory. Please refer to ''Ont Human Rights Comm and O’Malley v Simpsons-Sears'', [1985] 2 SCR 536 at para 14. The policy or act does not have to affect every person in the group for it to be considered discriminatory. E.g., if a policy discriminates against only women that are pregnant it would still be considered sex discrimination. As well, it is possible that an act or policy may affect men as well as women, but affect one sex to a disproportionate degree, in which case it could also qualify as sex discrimination. | Discrimination need not be intentional. Any policy or action that has an adverse effect on a protected group might be considered discriminatory. Please refer to ''Ont Human Rights Comm and O’Malley v Simpsons-Sears'', [1985] 2 SCR 536 at para 14. The policy or act does not have to affect every person in the group for it to be considered discriminatory. E.g., if a policy discriminates against only women that are pregnant it would still be considered sex discrimination. As well, it is possible that an act or policy may affect men as well as women, but affect one sex to a disproportionate degree, in which case it could also qualify as sex discrimination. | ||
Discrimination can also be established on an “intersectional” basis. This means that the discriminatory action had an adverse impact on the basis of multiple protected grounds, occurring simultaneously, which cannot easily be separated from | Discrimination can also be established on an “intersectional” basis. This means that the discriminatory action had an adverse impact on the basis of multiple protected grounds, occurring simultaneously, which cannot easily be separated from one another. It is not always necessary to establish that each individual ground has been met where intersectional discrimination can be established. Please refer to ''Radek v Henderson Development (Canada) Ltd.'', 2005 BCHRT 302 para 463 for more information. | ||
If, after reading the HRC, you are still unsure whether the impugned action lies within the ambit of the HRC, contact the B.C. Human Rights Clinic (see [[Governing Legislation and Resources for Human Rights (6:I)#B. Resources | Section I.B:Resources]]). | |||
=== 2. Ancestry, Colour, Place of Origin and Race === | |||
The grounds of ancestry, colour, place of origin and race are included in the HRC as a means to combat racism and racial discrimination. Each of the above referenced grounds is protected in the HRC and may be cited individually in connection with a discriminatory incident or grouped together in order to better illustrate a particular situation. For further information on how the above grounds interact, please refer to ''Torres and others v. Langtry Industries (No 5)'', 2009 BCHRT 3. | |||
Discrimination on the basis of ancestry, colour, place of origin or race can also be established where the respondent caused harm to the complainant by taking advantage of a vulnerability caused by the complainant's ancestry, colour, place of origin or race. For more information, see ''PN v. FR and another (No. 2)'', 2015 BCHRT 60 (CanLII). Please note that this decision is under Judicial Review as of June, 2015. | |||
In B.C., the grounds of ancestry, colour, place of origin and race are protected in the areas of employment; employment advertising; membership in a trade union, employer’s organization or occupational association; public services such as schools, government programs, restaurants, and stores; publications; tenancy; and purchase of property. | |||
=== 3. Political Belief === | |||
The HRC provides protection from discrimination due to political beliefs and/or affiliations in the areas of employment; employment advertising; and membership in a trade union, employer’s organization or occupational association. | |||
In BC, few human rights cases have been decided on the grounds of political belief and, as such, a comprehensive definition of what constitutes a political belief under the HRC has not been established. | |||
The Tribunal has, however, identified two key principles in determining whether a complainant’s belief should be protected under the HRC: | |||
#Political belief is to be given a liberal definition; it is not confined to partisan political beliefs. Hence political beliefs are not limited to beliefs about recognized or registered political parties. | |||
#Political belief is not unlimited; for example, views about matters such as business or human resources decisions an employer may make do not come within its ambit. | |||
Please refer to ''Prokopetz and Talkkari v Burnaby Firefighters’ Union and City of Burnaby'', 2006 BCHRT 462 at para 31. | |||
In the ''Wali v Jace Holdings'', 2012 BCHRT 389 at para 117, the tribunal determined that free speech regarding matters affecting the regulation of a profession could constitute a political belief. This was narrowed to the particular legislative framework and mandate of the College of Pharmacists. The tribunal member took into account that the issue was a legislative initiative, involving public welfare and was being debated in the pharmaceutical community in determining that the belief was a protected political belief. | |||
=== 4. Religion === | |||
Religious discrimination cases have helped to define several of the fundamental ideas and standards that comprise human rights law in Canada. Matters before the court have routinely addressed discriminatory incidents concerning religious faith, beliefs, customs and practices. In B.C., protection from discrimination based on religion is provided in the areas of employment; employment advertising; membership in a trade union, employer’s organization, or occupational association; public services; publications; tenancy and purchase of property. The duty to accommodate has been firmly established in case law and obliges employers to accommodate the religious practices of their employees as long as doing so does not cause undue hardship. These practices may be linked to customs involving prayer, dietary restrictions, clothing requirements, and time off on religious holy days. Please refer to ''Moore v British Columbia (Ministry of Social Services)'', BCHRC (1992), 17 CHRR D/426. | |||
=== 5. Family Status and Marital Status === | |||
Family status generally refers to parent-child relationships but may encompass other family relationships including those between siblings, in-laws, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews and cousins. For case law on the definition of family status and the test for discrimination on that basis see ''Fianza v. Ladco Investments Inc'' (1999), 35 CHRR D/500 (BCHRT) at para 13-18, in which a sibling relationship is brought under the ambit of protection against family status discrimination. The leading authority on discrimination in employment on the ground of family status in BC is the British Columba Court of Appeal decision in ''HSABC v. Campbell River & North Island Transition Society'', 127 L.A.C. (4th) 1 (B.C.C.A.) (“Campbell River”). | |||
Marital status normally refers to couples with a ‘spouse-like’ relationship. The HRC extends protection to all individuals regardless of their status (i.e. married, common-law, single, separated, divorced or widowed). Issues involving family and marital status may often overlap and may be cited concurrently to fully illustrate a certain situation. | |||
In BC, the grounds of family and marital status are protected in the areas of employment; employment advertising; membership in a trade union, employer’s organization, or occupational association; public services; tenancy and publications. Only marital status is protected in the area of purchase of property. | |||
=== 6.Physical or Mental DisabilityDisability is not defined in the HRC. However, the concept of physical disability, for human rights purposes, generally indicates a: “physiological state that is involuntary, has some | |||
p6-8 | p6-8 | ||