Although “[t]here is nothing on the face of the Customs legislation, or in its necessary effects, which contemplate[d] … differential treatment based on sexual orientation,”68 “a large measure of discretion [was] granted in the administration of the Act, from the level of the Customs official up to the Minister,” which was indirectly discriminatory to the appellant.69 A claim could similarly chall. [...] According to the Court: The consequences of success would be the quashing of the April 2010 Decision and would not affect general emissions from the refinery, and could not generally impose a cumulative effects assessment into the regulatory process, though the applicants and Ecojustice advocate on behalf of such change. [...] While the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal denied the application, Justice Abella—writing for the majority—held that the job-sharing program created a distinction based on sex and denied a benefit in a manner that has the effect of perpetuating disadvantage.101 In her reasons, Justice Abella reiterated the importance of recognizing and protecting against adverse effects discrimination. [...] If a rule is shown to contribute to or worsen a group's disadvantaged position, this should be sufficient to establish the necessary connection between the rule and the disadvantage.111 In line with principles of substantive equality, this analysis requires attention to the “full context of the claimant group’s situation”, to the “actual impact of the law on that situation”, and to the “persistent. [...] As the Stockholm Declaration of the UN Conference on the Human Environment recognized in 1972, “both aspects of man's environment, the natural and the manmade, are essential to the wellbeing and to the enjoyment of basic rights even the right to life itself, and that "man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of quality that permits a lif.
Authors
- Pages
- 20
- Published in
- Canada
