Bliss v. Canada is a Supreme Court of Canada decision on equality rights for women under the Canadian Bill of rights. The court case had significant impacts on society and women equality in the U.S/world. It involved both, section 46 of the bill of rights and section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to be reviewed in order to make a final decision.
Stella Bliss had to leave her work due to pregnancy. Due to her situation she was not granted to full benefits under section 30 of the act which, guaranteed certain rights and freedoms to not be construed nor abrogate to any rights or freedoms that pertain to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. However, she was subject to section 46 which denied her benefits for a period of six weeks after childbirth. Bliss challenged section 46 as a violation of section 1(b) of the bill of rights which ensures “The right of the individual to equality before the law and protection of the law”. Board of Referees rejected her argument, and found that the act
…show more content…
was perfectly valid, and in this case the discrimination was not against women but pregnant people. The decision was later influenced by the equality rights in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court afterwards found discrimination against pregnant people to be discrimination against women under the provincial Human Rights Code of Manitoba. It was not until Bliss v.
Canada that changes were made. Bliss’s argument was soundly defeated in the court ultimately, however, a coalition of feminist and civil liberties groups took the court case, as a need for change. Many feminists have suggested that the Bliss decision demonstrates both the problems with formal equality and the limited effectiveness of the Bill of Rights for equality litigation. It was just the beginning of a series of events that would lead to a complete overhaul of Unemployment benefit conditions and changes in the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms.The Bliss case led women's groups to demand stronger equality rights in section 15 of the Charter, “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical
disability.” In Brooks v. Safeway Canada (1989), the Supreme Court overturned Bliss. Yet, it did lead for changes to be made in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, lead to an agreement that Discrimination against pregnant people is discrimination against women, and was Followed by Brooks v. Safeway Canada, which also involved Supreme Court of Canada decision on employer discrimination of pregnant employees.
Elizabeth Henderson, Trials, tribunals and tribulations: Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission [1995] Sydney Law Review Vol. 17, 587
55), but this was taking away from Gladue not only by Barton, but also through the courts, as the case was acquitted. The constitution act also states in section fifteen subsection one that “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disabilities” (Canada, Last revised 2016, p. 56); however, we notice that this case was acquitted was it because Gladue was of aboriginal descent or she worked as a prostitute or that she was simply just a women who has no power? As this leads us to assume such injustice were present in this court case, because if there was three other reported cases in Canada over a twenty year span where victims succumbed to their injuries resulted from rough sex, and those cases all defendants were convicted with murder charges, why was Barton’s case
The Calder Case was the spark that led to the Canadian government recognizing Aboriginals and their rights. Firstly, the aboriginals used the Calder Case to inform the government that they were taking away their rights. The Calder Case was launched after the Attorney General of British Columbia declared “that the Aboriginal Title, other wise known as the Indian Title, of the Plaintiffs to their ancient tribal territory...has never been lawfully extinguished.”1 The statement made by the government claimed that the Aboriginal Title did not exist in the eyes of the law and before the Calder Case, it allowed them to ignore Aboriginal land rights all over the country. In addition, The Calder brought the issues the Aboriginals were facing with land claims to the attention of the Canadian government. “According to Kainai Board of Education The case made it all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada where the court ended up rejecting the native's claims after being split on it's validity. However, the Supreme Court of Canada's recognition required new respect for Aboriginal land claims.”2 The Supreme Court of Canada's recognition of the Calder Case benefited the Aboriginals as the government was...
Canada my Canada by Tomson Highway describes Canada in a very descriptive way. The majestic mountains are like a protective wall for the Great Plains. The blue water with the diverse marine life and the Forests that provide air for a big part of North America.
Separate but equal, judicial review, and the Miranda Rights are decisions made by the Supreme Court that have impacted the United States in history altering ways. Another notable decision was made in the Tinker v. Des Moines Case. Ultimately the Supreme Court decided that the students in the case should have their rights protected and that the school acted unconstitutionally. Justice Fortas delivered a compelling majority opinion. In the case of Tinker v Des Moines, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion was strongly supported with great reasoning but had weaknesses that could present future problems.
In the case of Canada v. Bedford, three sex workers in Ontario Canada, Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch and Valerie Scott, challenged the Charter as they stated that the following sections in the Criminal Code violate the rights promised and protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; CC s 210, CC s. 212(1) (j), and CC s. 213(1) (c). These sections “make it an offence to keep or be in a bawdy-house, prohibit living on the avails of prostition, and prohibits communicating in public for the purposes of prostitution,” (Canada v. Bedford, 2013, 6-3). The women claimed that these restrictions did not, in fact, prevent but implement more danger for anyone in the field of work. The women claimed that these restrictions went against their rights protected under s. 2(b) of the Charter as it disabled them from their right to freedom of expression (Canada v. Bedford, 2013, 6). As the provisions were set to prevent “public nuuisance” and “exploitation of prositutes,” they in fact go against the rights in s. 7 of the Charter. Thus, being under declaration of invalidity. This in fact brings upon question on whether it is the right decision to allow prostitution without any regulation in order to impose that the the Charter is not being violated, or whether to suspend the declaration until a proper method has been developed (while infringing the rights of those in the field of work). Ultimately, all of the laws were struck down by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Cameron, Jamie. "Justice in Her Own Right: Bertha Wilson and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms." The Law Society of Upper Canada. N.p., 2008. Web. 29 Dec. 2013. .
Tse was R v. Duarte. R v. Duarte had gone to the Supreme Court of Canada to fight section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This case presented similar features to R v. Tse. Mario Duarte was under investigation for a drug related situation. Police officers had set up a warrantless camera in the hotel room where the undercover cop would meet Mario Duarte, and was later convicted. Officers used the video as evidence but it was found that it violated section 8 of the Charter. Later the case had been appealed and Justice Peter Cory, found that what the Police officers had done was justified and did not violate the reasonable privacy. Justice Peter Cory relied upon United States v. White and Lopez v. United States to justify his reasoning. Another case that relates is Hunter et al. v. Southam Inc. This case is a landmark case to the Supreme Court of Canada because it is the first privacy rights case that is based on s. 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The investigation began by the government by giving authority to Combines Investigation Act to examine files in Southam Newspaper. The judge in Alberta found that the Act was conflicting with the Charter and therefore the evidence gathered was inadmissible. The last case that relates is R v. Godoy. This case relates to R v. TSE because police officers abused their powers by entering into an apartment because of a received 911 call that had been dropped before the caller
Before World War I, equality for woman and men were very unfair. Woman weren’t even legally “persons”; they weren’t allowed to join parliament or the senate because they weren’t legally “persons”, therefore these jobs were occupied by men only. During World War I and World War II, many men had left for war, thus meaning there were many job openings that needed to be occupied as soon as possible, women then began to take on stereotypical male jobs which men thought women couldn’t do or couldn’t do as well. Women showed their capabilities and realized they shouldn’t be considered less than men. In retaliation of not being considered “persons”, women decided to take action. The famous five brought the persons case upon the supreme court of Canada in 1927, which was finally determined by Judicial Council of Britain's Privy Council in 1929. The “persons” case involved women not legally being “persons”. After the famous five won the case, women were legally considered “persons” then women began to join important jobs such as members of parliament and the senate. Along with becoming “persons”, women were beginning to get their right to vote in provinces slowly. In 1916, four provinces gave women the right to vote provincially and, finally, in 1940, the last province (Quebec) gave women the right to vote provincially. Later, in World War II, there was another change in
1. George Blake and Theophilus Parsons represented James Martin’s case. George Blake drew on the definition that “a feme-covert was never holden to take an oath of allegiance” (p.146). Anna Martin acted upon her duties as a wife. “A feme covert has no political relation to the State any more than an alien” (p.146). Theophilus Parsons added that, “Infants, insane, femes-covert, all whom the law considers as having no will, cannot act freely” (p.149). He raised the question whether the statute include persons without wills of their own. James Sullivan asserted on Blake’s accusation “words of the act do not include them because the words are in the masculine gender. The same reasoning would go to prove that the Constitution of the Commonwealth does not extend to women” (p.147). He articulated too that women could make their political choice in the presence of revolution. “Cannot a feme-covert levy war and conspire to levy war? She certainly can commit treason” (p.148). Daniel Davis claimed that women were “inhabitants and members” of the State. “Anna Martin was an inhabitant, appears by the record to have been so. She is therefore within the statute” (p.147). Four judges favored for reversing the confiscation and only three addressed the issue of feme-covert. Justice Theodore Sedgwick respected women’s understanding on submitting their opinions to their husbands even to the extent of losing their properties. Justice Simeon Strong emphasized that married women were bounded to their duty of obedience as wives exempting them from punishments committed by their husbands. Justice Francis Dana expressed that “because femes-covert, having no will, could not incur the forfeiture. And that the statute never was intended to include them—and o...
On February 21 and 22 of this year, the Supreme Court of Canada was asked to rule whether th...
The Roe v. Wade case originated in the state of Texas in 1970 at the suggestion of Sarah Weddington an Austin attorney. Norma McCorvey otherwise known as "Jane Roe" was an unmarried pregnant woman seeking to overturn the anti-abortion law in the state of Texas. The lawsuit claimed that the statue was unconstitutionally vague and abridged privacy rights of pregnant women guaranteed by the first, fourth, fifth, ninth, and fourteenth amendments to the constitution. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade)
“Honey, you’re not a person, now get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich!” If a husband were to say these words to his wife today, he would likely receive a well-deserved smack to the face. It is not until recently that Canadian women have received their status as people and obtained equal rights as men. Women were excluded from an academic education and received a lesser pay than their male counter parts. With the many hardships women had to face, women were considered the “slave of slaves” (Women’s Rights). In the past century, women have fought for their rights, transitioning women from the point of being a piece of property to “holding twenty-five percent of senior positions in Canada” (More women in top senior positions: Report). The Married Women’s Property Act, World War I, The Person’s Case, and Canadian Human Rights Act have gained Canadian women their rights.
received the right to attend schools of higher education, but she hasn?t receive the rights to equal access for career paths, or promotions in careers traditionally filled by males including the fast growing field of computer technology.
We have a right to equal well-paid employment, to equal opportunities. The right to vote is an important weapon. And now the Family Code has been passed, restoring to the most humble of women the dignity that has so often been trampled upon. (Bâ 61)