Supreme Court of Canada

The Government of British Colombia established minimum physical fitness standards for fire fighters. The claimant, a woman, had previously performed her work satisfactorily but failed to meet the aerobic standard. The arbitrator found that the aerobic standard constituted adverse discrimination based on sex because men as a group have a higher aerobic capacity than women and therefore are more able to reach the standard. The Court of Appeal overturned the ruling.

The respondent’s group insurance plan provided weekly benefits for loss of pay due to accident or sickness. The plan covered pregnant women subject to an exclusion from coverage during the period commencing on the tenth week prior to the expected week of childbirth and extending to six weeks after it (even if the accident or sickness was unrelated to the pregnancy).

Three female Safeway employees filed a complaint with the Manitoba Human Rights Commission stating that the company plan discriminated based on sex and family status by denying benefits for loss of pay due to accident or sickness during a 17-week period during pregnancy (even if the accident or sickness at issue was unrelated to the pregnancy). The Commission’s adjudicator dismissed the claims, and this decision was upheld by the Court of the Queen’s Bench and the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court of Canada decided that Safeway’s plan did discriminate against pregnant women.

Three women challenged three Canadian Criminal Code provisions that indirectly restricted the practice of prostitution by criminalizing various related activities. Section 210, which prohibited the operation of common “bawdy-houses,” prevented prostitutes from offering their services out of fixed indoor locations such as brothels. Section 212, which prohibited “living off the avails” of prostitution, prevented anyone, including “pimps,” from profiting from another’s prostitution.

A Human Rights Tribunal constituted under s.39 of the Canadian Human Rights Act 1976-77 found that the recruitment, hiring, and promotion policies at Canadian National Railway Company (“CN”) prevented and discouraged women from working on blue collar jobs and as a result it imposed a special employment programme on CN. The programme required CN to increase to 13% the proportion of women working in non-traditional occupations and until that goal was achieved to hire at least one woman for every four non-traditional jobs filled in the future.

This case concerned the issue of child support and the entitlement of recipient spouses, predominantly mothers, to increased child support following an increase in the income of payer spouses, who are predominantly fathers. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously that ex-spouses could face significant retroactive child support payments if they failed to declare their increased earnings.

Andrew Scott Darrach was accused of sexually assault and “attempted to introduce evidence of the complainant’s sexual history” at trial as part of his defense. After the voir dire process, required under the Criminal Code of Canada, the trial judge refused to allow the introduction of evidence on the plaintiff’s sexual history. Darrach was convicted of the assault. Darrach appealed on the basis that the refusal impeded his right to fair trial.

The complainant applied for membership of the Yukon Order of Pioneers and was rejected on the ground that she was female. According to its constitution, the Order is dedicated to, among other things, the advancement of the Yukon territory, the mutual protection of its members and the collection and the preservation of literature and incidents of Yukon’s history. The historical materials and details of members are made available to the public, which is the only public-service related activity of the organization.

The appellant waitresses had been harassed while working at Pharos Restaurant, a restaurant owned by Platy Enterprises Ltd. Multiple waitresses endured sexual harassment from the same employee. In each individual incident, the waitresses resisted the conduct and one waitress spoke to management. While the harassment stopped, the offending employee continued to behave in an “unpleasant manner.” An adjudicator for the Manitoba Human Rights Commission awarded damages to the victims of sexual harassment and found that they had been “victims of sex discrimination contrary to s.

The appellant, a battered woman, killed her abusive partner after an argument in which he threatened her life. In her defense, the appellant offered the expert testimony of a psychiatrist who testified regarding battered woman syndrome. The appellant was ultimately acquitted. The Manitoba Court of Appeal overturned the acquittal, and the Supreme Court of Canada considered whether the expert testimony of the psychiatrist should have come before the court and whether the judge’s instructions on said testimony were appropriate.