Bill C-10: The Future of Regulated Canadian Content (Updated) Canada’s existing legislation, the Broadcasting Act, could be on the receiving end of a makeover. Bill C-10, first introduced by Heritage Minister Guilbeault to the House of Commons in November 2020, will attempt to regulate the competition and content displayed by Canadian broadcasters such as Global, CTV, and CBC. However, it doesn’t end there. Internet streaming services, Netflix and Disney Plus, to name a few, will also be affected by this if the Trudeau Government upholds their promise in re-introducing this Bill. Bill C-10 is aimed at promoting and developing content made by Canadian artists, producers, and creators within Canada and is meant to subject streaming services to the same requirements as Canadian broadcasters. This task was initially assigned to the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, otherwise known as the CRTC. The CRTC files what is and is not Canadian content and would issue fines for violations to broadcaster’s who did not comply. On implementation, the future of streaming services could drastically change, from algorithm to content. Digital platforms and social media websites could change user experience due to the Act to Amend the Broadcasting Act, placing content into further censorship mode. While social media usage and online streaming platforms promote individual expression and content, we could soon see a change in how user content expression is safeguarded. If Bill C-10 is passed, regular content could potentially limit or undermine the Canadian creative sector. There could be a risk of overly broad regulations controlling the content that Canadians stream and view. Bill-C10 would also influence digital media companies. As Canadians know, the media streaming network availability is limited to two, maybe three, major players. While in comparison, partners to the south have the unlimited possibility of choosing from when it comes to the internet, cellular, and television services. The Canadian sector has managed to monopolize media streaming all for the effort of “promoting” Canadian content. Bill-C10, in effect, could mean pigeonholing Canadians further into “choosing” which content is available. Reaction to Bill C-10 The infringement on individual speech is what critics have warned about for this Bill. It is among one of the most far-reaching plans by the Liberal government to regulate the algorithms tech companies use to display content. Modernizing the internet’s legal framework has needed reshaping and reforming, especially when considering monopoly power, taxation, and worker rights. This Bill seems to focus more on curtailing the influence of foreign culture as opposed to promoting Canadian culture through media law. The Next Step Bill C-10 has not passed, however, the Senate has provided Members of Parliament with the opportunity to revise this, as they continue to study the best way to regulate Canadian content through growing technology tools. The final steps in pushing this Bill through will include issuing policy directives by government officials to the CRTC and how they will lead the usage of instruments that have been allowed by the Bill. This will also include proceedings with stakeholders. The CRTC will have to develop ways to determine how the new regulations will continue for online undertakings. The critical questions being, who will be included in the new system and who will be exempt from it. This new Bill will inherently define the landscape of Canadian Broadcasting and its online platform partners. The support of Canadian artists and creators is crucial to Canadian culture, but how will this affect the availability of foreign content and the public’s fundamental right to freedom of expression and their right to choose the content? If you have more questions about Bill C-10, you can contact Timothy Gindi at 416 446-33340 or at Timothy.Gindi@devrylaw.ca, additionally, you can contact Marty Rabinovitch at 416 446-5826 or at Marty.Rabinovitch@devrylaw.ca. *This blog was co-authored by Angela Victoria Papeo* “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique, and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situations and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Human Rights LawOctober 4, 2021October 14, 2021
Novel Issues Raised by Transgender Human Rights Complaints A recent human rights complaint against several salons in Vancouver, British Columbia sheds new light on the relationship between human rights law and persons who identify as transgender. DISCRIMINATION AGAINST TRANSGENDER PERSONS Jessica Yaniv, a transgender woman from British Columbia, has launched human rights complaints against several salons in Vancouver who refused to wax her on the basis that she had male genitalia. While no ultimate decision has yet been released, the reasons of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal in Yaniv v. Various Waxing Salons, 2019 BCHRT 106 (CanLII) have raised some novel issues in human rights litigation. The Tribunal has been critical of Yaniv particularly because of the manner in which she is pursuing her complaint. She has launched dozens of separate complaints against different salons. The Tribunal noted that this “opens a valid question about her motives in filing so many complaints.” On the other hand, the Tribunal has not taken issue with the substance of the complaints. Instead, it has noted the issues raised by Yaniv are complex and require in-depth consideration. While waxing was characterized by the Tribunal as crucial “gender-affirming care for transgender women”, it was nonetheless considered to be “a very intimate service that is sometimes performed by women who are themselves vulnerable. JY’s complaints raise a novel issue around the rights and obligations of transgender women and service providers in these circumstances”. WITHDRAWAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINTS The Tribunal also took issue with the fact that Yaniv withdrew many of the complaints she launched against various salons. In particular, Yaniv repeatedly withdrew her complaints once opposing counsel was retained. While the Tribunal mentioned that withdrawing complaints is an acceptable practice, it also stated that it is not proper to do so where such a withdrawal would significantly prejudice other parties or the Tribunal “in a manner constituting improper conduct warranting the sanction of costs.” The Tribunal continued by noting, “I am now of the view, based on these new facts, that JY’s [Jessica Yaniv’s] pattern of filing such a high volume of complaints and then withdrawing in the face of opposition undermines the integrity of the Tribunal.” The Tribunal concluded by reminding the parties it would “deliver its service in a way that is respectful and does not expose her [Yaniv] to further discrimination. However, she must also understand that respondents are entitled to defend themselves and expect that they will.” WHAT DOES THIS HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINT TELL US? Transgender discrimination complaints at Human Rights Tribunals will continue to be seriously considered. However, because transgender discrimination actions have the potential to raise many novel legal issues, it is difficult to predict how Tribunals will respond to the competing interests at stake in similar human rights cases. As a result, if you are planning on launching a transgender discrimination complaint, or are required to defend against one, retaining legal advice to guide you through the process is crucial. This litigation also tells us that Tribunals and adjudicative bodies in general do not take legal actions lightly. If complaints or actions are launched repetitively and excessively, courts and certain tribunals have the power to enact punitive measures to deter such conduct, including but not limited to cost awards. If you would like legal advice on this subject, or would like more information generally on human rights or employment law, please contact experienced human rights & employment lawyer Marty Rabinovitch at marty.rabinovitch@devrylaw.ca or at 416-446-5826 “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Employment Law, Human Rights LawSeptember 12, 2019September 30, 2020
Could a Gift Card Compensate for a Minor Human Rights Tribunal complaint? A recent British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal decision has struck down a human rights complaint by a supermarket customer on the grounds that she was already compensated by the store for her complaint. But what compensation was considered enough? In Duke v Sobeys, 2018 BCHRT 283, the complainant went grocery shopping at a Sobey’s in British Columbia. While shopping, the complainant stated she was approached by an employee who told her inappropriate sex jokes. The employee admitted to his behaviour. Ms. Duke then requested a $250 gift card and an apology, both of which Sobeys provided. After the fact, Ms. Duke filed a complaint with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. The Human Rights Tribunal concluded that the gift card and the apology were sufficient compensation in the circumstances. The Tribunal found that Sobey’s promptly responded to the complaint, immediately investigated it and addressed it appropriately. Because Sobey’s dealt with the complaint as efficiently as possible to ensure that if any discrimination existed, it would be resolved appropriately, the court felt no other remedial measures were necessary. The Tribunal also stated, “it does not further the purposes of the Code to encourage a complainant to increase what is sought, after they receive what they initially ask for”. Since the customer asked for compensation, and Sobey’s promptly provided it to her, no further remedies were required. The complaint was ultimately dismissed under section 27(1)(d)(ii) of the British Columbia Human Rights Code as it did not further the purposes of the Code. What does this decision tell us? As an employer, it is very important to respond quickly to complaints to avoid negative legal consequences. In this case, Sobey’s was quick to investigate the complaint and dealt with it in a reasonable manner that clearly ameliorated their customer’s concerns, at least at the time. This was sufficient to allow Sobey’s to avoid an unfavourable decision of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. If you would like more information on human rights and employment law, contact Marty Rabinovitch at 416-446-5826 or at marty.rabinovitch@devrylaw.ca “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Employment Law, Human Rights LawAugust 20, 2019September 30, 2020
Trinity Western Decision The Supreme Court of Canada has rendered a decision that is an important victory for the promotion of equality, diversity and access to justice in Canada. On June 15, 2018, the Court released the landmark decision, finding that law societies were entitled to deny accreditation to a proposed law school that had discriminatory admissions requirements. The case garnered national attention as it seemingly involved a clash between freedom of religion and the right to equality, values which are central to Canada’s democratic society. Trinity Western University (“TRU”), a Christian university in British Columbia, submitted a proposal to open a law school that was based in the foundational religious beliefs of evangelical Christianity. Admission to the proposed law school would require that all students and faculty adhere to a community code of conduct, which contained a covenant that effectively denied admission to LGBTQ students. The covenant required TRU students to voluntarily abstain from a number of activities and explicitly prohibited “sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and woman.” The British Columbia and Ontario law societies voted against accreditation of the school because of the discriminatory nature of the covenant. The school sought judicial review of this decision, claiming that refusal to approve the law school on this basis violated its right to religious freedom under Section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The majority of the Court found that the law societies’ decision to deny accreditation was reasonable and constituted a proportionate balance between the limitation of religious freedoms under the Charter and the statutory objectives of the decision to refuse approval. The Court found that the infringement of religious rights was minor compared to the discrimination members of the LGBTQ community would face under the covenant. The Court found that protection of public interest was a valid objective for law societies to consider when making decisions with respect to admission to the legal profession. The Court further accepted that by promoting equality, supporting diversity within the bar, and preventing harm to LGBTQ law students, the law societies were acting in furtherance of the public interest. In addition to upholding human rights, this decision has broader implications for the promotion of access to justice. A major policy issue experienced by Canadians is the inaccessibility of the legal system. This problem is particularly pronounced among members of historically marginalized groups, including the LGBTQ community. One explanation for the heightened barriers experienced by certain communities in accessing legal services is their lack of representation within the legal profession. Accordingly, there has been a call from policymakers and accessibility advocates to promote diversity within the bar to ensure that members of disadvantaged groups can assess legal representatives who can identify and respond to their unique needs. Paul Schabas, treasurer of the Law Society of Ontario, acknowledged this important implication of the decision, stating, “Access to justice is facilitated where clients seeking legal services are able to access a legal profession that is reflective of a diverse population and responsive to diverse needs.” Ultimately, this decision of Canada’s highest court recognizes that Law Societies, as self-regulating bodies of the legal profession, have an overarching obligation to promote equality and uphold human rights when making decisions involving admission to the profession. As gatekeepers to the legal system, these decision makers must be prepared to take active steps to remove inequitable barriers and ensure all persons have an equal opportunity to pursue a legal education. For assistance with or legal advice on human rights laws in Toronto, please contact one of our human rights lawyers. “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Human Rights LawJuly 5, 2018June 16, 2020
Service Dog Not Allowed in Elementary School Ontario’s Human Rights Tribunal has recently ruled that a 9-year-old boy with autism does not have the right to bring his service dog with him to class. This ruling marks the first legal disposition of a dispute between parents and their regional school board that began back in 2014. Their son has a certified service dog, and they wanted him to have the animal in the classroom. The parents argued that the dog was essential to their son’s education as the dog is able to control their son’s outbursts and prevents them from happening, enabling their son to suffer less distractions in the classroom. The school board, Waterloo Catholic, has rejected this argument and refused to permit the dog in the classroom. At the hearing, the school board suggested that the child was performing fine without the service animal and that its presence would not address the issues that the child was experiencing in the classroom. This is not the first time the Waterloo Catholic School Board has been challenged on its policy with respect to service dogs. In April of 2016 it was reported that a nine year old boy was prohibited from having his service animal accompany him to school. The School Board has not commented on why it has implemented a policy that restricts service dogs from coming into the classroom. The decision as to whether service dogs have the right to enter the classroom is determined by each individual school board’s own policy. Under the Guide Dog Act, guide dogs which are certified have the same rights and responsibilities as a person without a dog. This means they are allowed access where the general public is allowed access. However, while schools certainly deliver a public service, under the Education Act, schools are not considered public spaces; they lock their doors when school is in session. This means that school boards are not required under the Guide Dog Act to permit guide dogs on school property. Instead, parents look to the Human Rights Code to have the legality of the school board policy on service dogs determined. Under the Code, the school board is required to accommodate disabilities to the point of undue hardship. What constitutes accommodation to the point of undue hardship depends on the particularities of the situation, with the Code prescribing three considerations when assessing whether an accommodation would cause undue hardship: cost, outside sources of funding and health and safety requirements. No other considerations can be properly considered. To claim the undue hardship defence the organization responsible for making the accommodation has the onus of proof. The nature of the evidence required to prove undue hardship must be objective, real, direct, and if cost is a factor, quantifiable. What this means is that, as recipient of a successful ruling, the school board was able to demonstrate that its legal duty to accommodate students with disabilities does not extend to requiring the school to permit service dogs in the classroom. However, given the individuality of determinations from the Tribunal, it is still open for other situations regarding service dogs in elementary schools to receive an alternate ruling, permitting service dogs in the classroom. Devry Smith Frank LLP is a full service law firm with experienced lawyers in the areas of Education law and Human Rights litigation. If you require representation for either of these areas, please contact the education law group and human rights group today. If you require representation for any other matter, you may contact our lawyers or call our office directly at 416-449-1400 today. By: Samantha Hamilton, Student-at-Law “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Education Law, Human Rights LawSeptember 5, 2017June 18, 2020
Gender Neutral Passports will be Available for Canadians Gender-neutral passports will soon be making their way into the hands of Canadians. Canadians who do not identify as male or female will soon be able to mark an “X” on their passports instead of “M” or “F”. Allowing this change addresses the current state of society and the changes in gender identity and expression, which falls in line with the government’s most recent efforts, and will make it easier for individuals to reflect their identity through government issued documents. Gender neutral passports have been something long awaited by the Canadian transgender community. Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen said, “all Canadians should feel safe to be themselves, live according to their gender identity and express their gender as they choose.” Before this was introduced, Parliament passed Bill C-16 earlier this summer, which amended the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds for discrimination. For more on Bill C-16, please read our previous blog post by lawyer Marc Kemerer. For more information on Bill C-16 or related issues, please contact Marc Kemerer today. More information on the government’s effort to better accommodate gender identity and expression through the modification of government issued documents through Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada will be announced on August 31. At Devry Smith Frank LLP we have experienced lawyers in all areas of law. For any questions on immigration matters, please contact DSF’s immigration group. For any other questions or information, please call our office directly at 416-449-1400. By: Nicolas Di Nardo “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Human Rights LawAugust 25, 2017June 18, 2020
When Discrimination is Not Prohibited: Housing Caleb Pheluong, a Vancouver resident, was served eviction papers once his landlord discovered that he intended to have his boyfriend stay over one night. The landlord expressed to him via text message that homosexuality was against her “Christian beliefs” and she could no longer have him living in her house. Is this discrimination? Sexual orientation is a protected ground under Human Rights Codes, and the landlord, in writing, expressed that his sexual orientation was the reason for his eviction. According to the B.C. Human Rights Code, no, it is not unlawful discrimination. And the answer would be no different in Ontario. Both Codes prohibit discrimination in accommodation and list sexual orientation as one of the grounds that are protected. This means, for example, that sexual orientation cannot be a reason for refusing to rent to a tenant. However, the Codes provide an exception for landlords who provide accommodation in dwellings that they also occupy. In Ontario, section 21(1) expresses that landlords who share either a kitchen and/or a bathroom with their tenant are exempt from the prohibitions on discrimination. Sharing a bathroom or kitchen with your landlord or their family takes you out from under the protection of the Human Rights Code and leaves you vulnerable to discrimination without legal recourse. Caleb fell victim to this loophole; he has no right under the law to remain a tenant in his present house or be compensated for the discrimination he faced. If, however, you fall outside this exception, you do have protection under the Code from such discrimination in accommodation. A recent Ontario Human Rights Tribunal decision awarded a couple $12,000 for their landlord’s discriminatory attitude and actions when he failed to accommodate their religious practices while he was re-letting the apartment they were vacating. The landlord’s refusal to agree to their requests, such as removing outdoor shoes before entering their prayer space, was held to be discrimination under the Code. Two very different legal outcomes from what appears to be acts of discriminatory conduct from a landlord towards a tenant. What these tenant situations illuminate is the difference in treatment of tenants who rent shared spaces with those who rent self-contained, private spaces. For information or assistance in regards to protections and legal recourse for human rights claims please contact one of our Human Rights Litigation Lawyers. By: Samantha Hamilton, Student-at-Law “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Human Rights LawAugust 24, 2017June 19, 2020
Toronto Man Subjected To ‘Cruel and Unusual’ Punishment While Detained By Brantford Police By: Nicolas Di Nardo, Junior Marketing & Administrator Treatment of prisoners is a big issue that for the most part, goes unseen by many all over the world. Many countries are full of corrupt law enforcement officers, horrible prison conditions, or do not follow the basic rights that are to be given to prisoners. However, you’d never suspect that a prisoner in Canada would go through and type of ‘cruel and unusual’ treatment that we hear about on the news. Unfortunately, it still does happen in our own backyard. Philip Alafe didn’t expect something like this to happen in Canada either, especially to him. Alafe, 27, is from Nigeria and is currently applying for refugee status. He was arrested back in July 2015 for dangerous driving, and assault with a weapon for driving dangerously at others. Upon his arrest, he disclosed his mental health issues – depression and anxiety – along with his disease, sick cell anemia, which without medication he can be left in an abundance of pain. In addition, he told Brantford Police Officer Staff Sgt. Cheney Venn that he was not suicidal in any way. Alafe and Venn arrived at the Police station at 6:50pm, at which time Alafe disclosed the above information before being placed in a cell. There, he began to have one of the worst nights of his life. Alafe described his whole night, stating that they treated him “worse than an animal…[he was] stripped of everything… [he] just didn’t want to live anymore… [he] thought he was going to be in that situation forever.” Philip’s night in the station was broken down into events: 11:21 p.m. Alafe spends 15 minutes asking for medication and throws wet toilet paper Venn threatens a “very frigging cold night” if Alafe continues to throw toilet paper 11:48 p.m. Alafe continue to throw toilet paper Venn takes his blanket and mattress away and provides Alafe with one pill 1:10 a.m. Philip ties his jumpsuit to the cell bars Venn threatens to take it if it is not taken down 2:50 a.m. Over this time, Alafe asks for his blanket back and ties his t-shirt to the bars, which Venn takes 3:01 a.m. Philip tries to get a piece of paper with his jumpsuit Jumpsuit is taken by Venn 3:03 a.m. From this point on, Alafe now spends his time in the cell naked, until 7:30 a.m. At 6 a.m. he tries to tie his socks into a noose, which an officer takes from him 7:30 a.m. Other officers return Alafe’s jumpsuit, mattress, and blanket After having gone through this night in the Brantford Police station and bringing this matter to court, Alafe said that without the video footage no one would have believed him when describing the events that took place. The footage displayed the “cruel and unusual treatment” that Alafe suffered, which the Ontario Court Justice Ken Lenz had also determined. Lenz found his rights under section 7 and section 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms have been violated. Sec. 7: Life, liberty and security of a person Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Sec. 12: Treatment or punishment Everyone has the right to not be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. When this ruling was issued in April, Ken Lenz condemned Venn’s behaviour describing the treatment as “egregious” and “clearly degrading to human dignity”. Not only did Judge Lenz identify that Venn had violated police policies relating to treatment of people in custody with mental health concerns, he defended Alafe by acknowledging that there was “nothing the defendant could do to stop his mistreatment even when he did behave as requested for extensive periods of time.” This is not the first case in which Venn has mistreated people in custody with mental health concerns. Venn defended his actions, testifying in court that his actions were common practice in similar situations. Lenz challenged Venn’s testimony and reviewed the Brantford Police policy, which states: A blanket should not be provided only if there is a history of suicidal tendencies, destructive behaviour, or the officer in charge deems it harmful to the prisoner, any person, or the facility. The policy does not mention the actions of removing mattresses, but does state that clothing may only be removed if the prisoner is suicidal. During his testimony, Venn said he was not concerned he would self-harm until he witnessed the sock incident. Lenz continued to take Alafe’s side, saying that Venn was “bullying someone in his control because he could” and that it “looks more like punishment than an attempt to elicit good behaviour.” Parallel with Alafe’s belief, Lenz even addressed the video exhibits, Lenz said, “without the cell videos, he would’ve simply believed the officer’s testimony.” This particular case is causing Lenz to have a change of heart with regards to our police force. He went on to say that the is beginning to share the perception that Alafe has, that the police can’t be fully trusted. As a result, the judge stayed the charges against Alafe. Venn is still on the force, he remains on regular duties. In addition to this ruling, Brantford police chief Greg Nelson will be investigating into potential professional misconduct. The policy and training practices in relation to prisoner care and handling will also be addressed and reviewed by the Brantford Police Service, and their findings will be presented to the Police Services Board. At Devry Smith Frank LLP we have experienced lawyers in all areas of law. If you are looking for a lawyer or have general questions, please feel free to contact one of our lawyers today, or call us directly at 416-449-1400. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Criminal Law, Human Rights LawAugust 3, 2017June 22, 2020
Police Brutality Leads to Thrown Out Charges By: Katelyn Bell, Summer Law Student The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”) guarantees certain protections to Canadian citizens, such as the right to life, liberty and security of the person; the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure; and the right not to be subjected to any cruel or unusual treatment or punishment. The Charter regulates interactions between the state (federal, provincial and territorial governments) and individuals; it does not govern interactions between individuals. If the Charter rights of an accused person were violated during the investigation against them, the court will exclude the evidence obtained in the investigation. This results in a dismissal of the charges. As such, many accused persons will seek to advance a Charter violation argument, which is not often successful. However, in the case of Mr. Jung, the argument was successful. Mr. Jung was stopped at a RIDE spot check in late February 2016. Mr. Jung was over the legal limit and therefore failed the roadside breath test. Mr. Jung was arrested by police at the spot check. Mr. Jung and his girlfriend – a passenger in the vehicle – were than transported to the police station for additional, more conclusive, breath tests. Mr. Jung alleged that during his time with the arresting officers, his Charter rights were violated. According to Mr. Jung, Constable Gill physically assaulted him while he was handcuffed. Mr. Jung stated that the police repeatedly bashed his head with a phone receiver, while the police officer claimed that he accidently hit Jung with the phone receiver. Mr. Jung was also deprived of using the washroom for a prolonged period of time. As documented by in-car video evidence, the two police officers who arrested Jung at the RIDE spot check told Jung to urinate in the back seat of the police cruiser. Mr. Jung’s case was heard at the Ontario Court of Justice on April 5 and 6, 2017. Justice J. W. Bovard released his decision on the matter on July 19, 2017. Justice Bovard found that the police did in fact violate Mr. Jung’s Charter rights, and as such, the breath tests could not be admitted as evidence (at paragraph 126): “I find that in light of this very serious breach of Mr. Jung’s right to security of the person, and considering the behaviour of the police regarding the breach, to admit the breath tests into evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.” Besides the breath tests, there was no other evidence against Mr. Jung on the charge of impaired driving. Thus, the court was unable to find Mr. Jung guilty of impaired driving and the charge was therefore dismissed. Toronto police have said that the court’s decision is being reviewed by the internal Professional Standards Unit. Devry Smith Frank LLP (DSF) is a full service law firm located in Don Mills. If you require representation or have any questions, please contact DSF today. You may contact one of the many experienced lawyers on our website or call us directly at 416-449-1400. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Human Rights LawJuly 31, 2017June 22, 2020
The Legality of Refusing to Bake a Wedding Cake Because of Sexual Orientation By: Michelle Cook, Summer Law Student In Canada, it is illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation, especially in the case of commercial business services available to the public. However, a legal case challenging the ability to discriminate against individuals for their sexual orientation because of religious reasons is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. With Donald Trump’s Supreme Court appointment of Neil Gorsuch, who is clearly pro-religion, anti-LGBT rights, swinging the majority of the Supreme Court to conservative-leaning judges, it appears the U.S. may return to an era where LGBT individuals can be openly discriminated against in the name of “religious freedom.” The Colorado case involves a Christian baker who refused to make a wedding cake for two men. Colorado is one of a few states that have anti-discrimination laws protecting LGBT individuals. The bakery, Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, was charged with violating the state’s discrimination laws. The state’s civil rights commission ordered the baker to provide wedding cakes on an equal basis for same-sex couples. Instead of complying with the commission’s order, the owner, Jack Phillips, refused to comply with it. Instead, he brought an appeal of the decision based on the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of the freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion. Phillips will also argue that as a baker, he should have artistic freedom that is not regulated by the state. The Colorado Supreme Court refused to hear the case, prompting Phillips to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Masterpiece Cakeshop has received a mixture of backlash and support for his decision. Interestingly, Phillips has noted that he has never strayed from his biblical teachings, even refusing to make cakes to celebrate Halloween, “anti-American or anti-family” themed cakes or ones that have a profane message. This is occurring in the U.S. while Toronto gains recognition as one of the top three most LGBT-friendly cities in the world. That is not to say that discrimination against LGBT individuals does not occur in Canada. In fact, this year a Montreal photographer named Premiere Productions refused to photograph a gay couple’s wedding. While no lawsuit was brought against them, it is clear that this conduct was illegal. This shows that while support for LGBT rights is increasing in both Canada and the U.S., there is still a fight to be made for true equality. What will be interesting to see is how the new conservative U.S. Supreme will delineate the ability to be able to discriminate against individuals based on religious values. Despite the rhetoric of American politicians, homosexuality is not a choice; someone is genetically born with a sexual orientation. Why is it still acceptable to openly discriminate against someone for who they love (an inherently personal matter) but unacceptable to openly discriminate against someone for their skin tone? At Devry Smith Frank LLP we have experienced lawyers in all areas of law. If you are looking for a lawyer or have general questions, please feel free to contact one of our lawyers today, or call us directly at 416-449-1400. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Human Rights LawJuly 4, 2017June 22, 2020