Equality Rights - Section 15
In this seminar, we will receive presentations on the following propositions
and then discuss them:
(1) "The recent case of Kapp is
a helpful adjustment to the Law test."
(2) "The issue of comparator groups is nothing more than a device that
allows the court to do whatever it wants."
(3) "The approach of the S.C.C. on the s. 1 issues in N.A.P.E. is
sound."
Cases:
Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497,
236 N.R. 1, 60 C.R.R. (2d) 1, 170 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 43 C.E.L.R. (2d) 49.
R.
v. Kapp, 2008 SCC 41
Lovelace v. Ontario, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 950, 188 D.L.R. (4th) 193, 255 N.R. 1, 75
C.R.R. (2d) 189, [2000] 4 C.N.L.R. 145.
Gosselin v.
Quebec (Attorney General), [2002]
4 S.C.R. 429.
Hodge v. Canada (Minister of
Human Resources Development), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 357.
Auton (Guardian ad litem of) v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 657.
Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v. N.A.P.E.,
[2004] 3 S.C.R. 381
As always, during the discussion in class you may
discuss any other Charter cases from any court and any secondary sources such
as books and articles.