Martin Flashcards
Why was the comparison rejected in this case?
the appellants argue that another relevant comparator is the group suffering from chronic pain who are not subject to the Act and can obtain damages for their condition through the application of tort principles. This approach was rejected because s15(1) analysis based on this distinction would challenge the entire system, and this comparison would also be inappropriate since tort compensation requires the injured party to establish that the injury was caused by the negligence of another.
what was the third submission of comparator group?
The appellants submit that workers suffering from chronic pain and eligible for s10E benefits constitute an appropriate comparator group. The distinction between this group and the appellants would be the date of their injury and the status of their case before the Board.
What is the distinction drawn on differential treatment, as discussed as Dickson C.J.?
- The Court has recognized that differential treatment can occur on the basis of enumerated grounds despite the fact that not all persons belonging to the relevant group are equally mistreated.
- This is demonstrated in Janzen v Platy, where Dickson CJ held that sexual harassment in the workplace constituted sex discrimination. He rejected the argument that since harassers choose their targets based on physical attractiveness, it does not amount to sex discrimination.
What is another case that rejects the argument rejected in Janzen v Platy?
Brooks v Canada Safeway Ltd, where Dickson CJ rejected the argument, explaining that since women can only become pregnant, distinctions based on pregnancy could be nothing other than distinctions based on or related to sex.
What was the policy in Gibbs?
The policy provided that in cases of mental illness, the income replacement benefit would terminate after two years unless the former employee remained in a mental institution.
What was Sopinka J’s argument in Gibbs?
held that a comparison could be properly drawn between two groups, each of whose members were affected by a disability.
What was Binnie J’s ruling in Granovsky?
held that a legislative distinction between temporary and permanent disability was based on the enumerated ground of “physical disability”
What was McLachlin J’s opinion in Winko v BC?
held that the special treatment of the not criminally responsible was founded on the presence of a particular type of mental disability at the time of commission of a criminal act.
