Thanks to Amnesty International for stating the obvious: Canada is a Noted Human Rights Pariah State. Only we disagree with the reasons for such a designation – I think it’s because of the encroachment on our fundamental freedoms, while Amnesty believes it’s because we don’t fund special interest and grievance groups enough. Sigh…
First: If you ever needed proof that the Human Rights Commissions have the ability to create new laws, look no further than the 2003 Supreme Court decision on Bell Canada v Canadian Association of Telephone Employees.
In Bell Canada, the SCC found that guidelines issued by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (“CHRC”) were “akin to law” and constituted hard law.
The paragraph within the decision regarding this point goes as follows:
While it may have been more felicitous for Parliament to have called the Commission’s power a power to make “regulations” rather than a power to make “guidelines”, the legislative intent is clear. A functional and purposive approach to the nature of these guidelines reveals that they are a form of law, akin to regulations. It is also worth noting that the word used in the French version of the Act is ordonnance — which leaves no doubt that the guidelines are a form of law.
Second: This complaint belies the true purpose of the modern re-interpretation of human rights: the expansion of the responsibilities of government (emphasis mine).
A Bouctouche, N.B., woman is taking her fight with the province’s Department of Health over the lack of funding for her prescription drug costs to the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission…
Owen said the Department of Health has an obligation to help people who are overwhelmed by drug costs.
Third: The complaint before the BCHRT between a strata council and a resident suffering from COPD has been settled, with the council paying for “pain and suffering” and legal costs.