Vriend V. Albertaa Case Analysis
Charter Case Analysis: Vriend v. Alberta
1. Delwin Vriend filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission because he believes that he was discriminated against by his employer after being fired when his employer became aware that Mr. Vriend was a homosexual.
2. The Alberta Human Rights Commission said that Vriend could not make a complaint under the IRPA because sexual orientation was not covered under the protected grounds of the IRPA.
3. Mr. Vriend claims that the IRPA violated Section 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. S.15 (1) states that “every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination.”
4. The applicants of the case are Mr. Vriend and the advocacy groups; the respondent is the Attorney General of Alberta who is representing the provincial government.
5. Judge Russell found that the violations in the IRPA were not justified as reasonable limits.
6. Reading in is a court adding in words/ideas instead of creating a completely new policy they simply add in a part. Once read in it is interpreted, applied and administered as any other would be. Reading in …show more content…
If the Alberta government wanted to keep the IRPA as it was, the only option would be to invoke the not-with-standing clause. A clause that allows provincial legislation and parliament to override a portion of the Charter. If the Alberta government used the not-with-standing clause they would have five years to renew it, this allows for new election before the clause must be renewed. Using the not-with-standing clause would be a hard decision because the government who invoked the clause would be committing political suicide because very few people would take kindly to a party that creates legislation that violates rights. It would also be hard to invoke the clause because the government that invokes it (Alberta) has to prove why violating Canadian citizen’s rights is
1. Delwin Vriend filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission because he believes that he was discriminated against by his employer after being fired when his employer became aware that Mr. Vriend was a homosexual.
2. The Alberta Human Rights Commission said that Vriend could not make a complaint under the IRPA because sexual orientation was not covered under the protected grounds of the IRPA.
3. Mr. Vriend claims that the IRPA violated Section 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. S.15 (1) states that “every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination.”
4. The applicants of the case are Mr. Vriend and the advocacy groups; the respondent is the Attorney General of Alberta who is representing the provincial government.
5. Judge Russell found that the violations in the IRPA were not justified as reasonable limits.
6. Reading in is a court adding in words/ideas instead of creating a completely new policy they simply add in a part. Once read in it is interpreted, applied and administered as any other would be. Reading in …show more content…
If the Alberta government wanted to keep the IRPA as it was, the only option would be to invoke the not-with-standing clause. A clause that allows provincial legislation and parliament to override a portion of the Charter. If the Alberta government used the not-with-standing clause they would have five years to renew it, this allows for new election before the clause must be renewed. Using the not-with-standing clause would be a hard decision because the government who invoked the clause would be committing political suicide because very few people would take kindly to a party that creates legislation that violates rights. It would also be hard to invoke the clause because the government that invokes it (Alberta) has to prove why violating Canadian citizen’s rights is