Talk:Section Fifteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Canadian law, an attempt to co-ordinate articles on Canadian law, produce common standards and fill in the gaps. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class.

[edit] Pregnancy and sex discrimination

The article states "In practice, the enumerated grounds have been given liberal and broad interpretations. For example, discrimination on the basis of pregnancy has been ruled to be sex discrimination (Brooks v. Canada Safeway Ltd.)." However, Brooks was, as the decision itself states, not a Charter case. Although I have no doubt you'd reach the same finding if it were a Charter case, that might be original research; I was wondering if we can find an actual Charter case for this paragraph. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe Brooks is cited as representative of the court's shift to a "purposive" approach to interpretation, which is used in the interpretation of both section 15 and the Human Rights Act. I wouldn't necessarily call it original research as the meaning of a single word will often be used in several contexts. So, for example, the Court's interpretation of words like "sex" in the context of the Human Rights Act will typically be applied in the same way to other texts such as the Charter. However, you're right that the phrase is misleading and suggests that Brooks is a Charter case. A similar Charter case, of course, would be better. None come to mind at the moment, but I'll take look. -PullUpYourSocks 15:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factual Accuracy

"Meaning and purpose of equality

The concept of equality in Canada has its philosophical origins in the works of Albert Venn Dicey who believed in substantive equality (similar to what Milton Friedman called "equality of outcome"). Substantive equality acknowledges that people do not all have the same ability and attributes, and are not equal under the law. Instead, by treating people differently everyone will be subject to equal impact of the law. This form of equality developed in response to formal equality which applies law indiscriminately and does not differentiates between personal characteristics (often called the "similarly-situated" doctrine)."

I have attempted to verify the information in this paragraph in relation to Dicey. I am concerned that the first sentence is simply false. I have found no evidence that Dicey believes in substantive equality. On the contrary, Dicey's works suggest that he advocated formal equality with respect to the rule of law. I have attached a dubious footnote to this paragraph. A citation, if there is one, is in order. Otherwise, it may be necessary to remove it.Ben 05:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)