University of Alberta Faculty of Law Blog

Edmonton Strathcona Candidates Faculty of Law Debate Today!

Just a reminder that Ms. Magna Carta is moderating the Edmonton Strathcona Candidates Faculty of Law Debate today at noon in McLennan Ross Hall (Rooms 231/237)! Liberal Edmonton Strathcona candidate Eleanor Olszewski QC and New Democratic Party Edmonton Strathcona candidate Linda Duncan, both University of Alberta Faculty of Law graduates, will both be in attendance. We are excited to hear their views on the Magna Carta, as well as other important issues such as investment in post-secondary institutions. Please come out to show your support and ask the candidates any questions you may have. We look forward to seeing you there!

Edmonton Strathcona Candidates Faculty of Law Debate

Ms Magna Carta is proud to be presenting the Edmonton Strathcona Candidates Faculty of Law Debate! Both the Liberal and the New Democratic Party candidates for the Edmonton Strathcona electoral district will be debating in McLennan Ross Hall, Rooms 231/237 this Tuesday, September 8th, at noon.

 

Liberal Edmonton Strathcona candidate, Eleanor Olszewski QC is a University of Alberta Law graduate. She was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 2007 and has held positions with both the Law Society of Alberta and the Canadian Bar Association. Olszewski was raised in Medicine Hat and in her 40 years living in Edmonton she has been involved with fundraising for local homeless shelters, theaters and performing arts schools.

 

New Democratic Party Edmonton Strathcona candidate, Linda Duncan is also a University of Alberta Law graduate. Duncan worked as an international environmental law consultant prior to being elected New Democratic Party Member of Parliament in 2008 and re-elected in 2011. Duncan has served as the NDP critic for Environment; Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development; Public Works and Government Services and most recently Western Economic Diversification.

 

These proud Albertans will be debating the most important election issues and looking to win your votes! Attend, enjoy and ask questions so you can be an informed voter this October 19th!

Welcome Back!

Hello incoming first year law students, and welcome back 2Ls & 3Ls!

 

For those of you who don’t know us, we are a group of 5 third year law students who began a blogging project last semester using the alias “Ms Magna Carta”. We know that first year can be overwhelming – 7 classes, endless events, assignments in the first week, property law – but at the same time you will have extremely unique and memorable experiences.

 

So what is the blog all about? Well, if you were like us when we first started the project, then you have at most a vague idea about what the Magna Carta is or why it is significant. In brief – the Magna Carta is an 800 year old constitutional document that is often considered to be the basis of some of our most foundational legal principles. Our posts throughout last semester started with a history of the document, and then considered an abundant amount of connections to modern day legislation. Some of our favorite posts include an interview with hip hop artist Melanin 9, the infamous deflategate incident, urban chicken keeping, and an interview with former Dragons Den character Brett Wilson. If you’re wondering how any of those things can relate to a constitutional document, take a peek and see for yourself.

 

The impetus for our blogging project stems from the Magna Carta’s world tour in celebration of its 800th birthday. The Magna Carta will be at the legislature starting on November 23rd. In honor of this significant document, we will be hosting several Magna Carta related events. We are very excited to be moderating the Strathcona Candidate Debate on September 8th at 12:00pm in Room 231/237. The Candidates from Edmonton Strathcona will be at the law school to engage in a debate and answer questions from the audience. Stay tuned for our future posts to learn about the four other exciting events which will be hosted by Ms. Magna Carta in the upcoming semester!

 

We invite you all to join us, to become a part of history and engage in thoughtful legal dialogue. We also suggest that you keep in mind classes like this for the future – the ones that are beyond the classroom, and can offer you the opportunity to expand your resourcefulness and draw parallels within the law. We look forward to seeing you throughout the semester!

 

Kate, Kathleen, Nicole, Sara, & Venessa

Rights and Religion on the Rainbow Bus

The following is an edited version of my opinion-editorial appearing in the Calgary Herald, 2 September 2015.

Last week Jesse Rau, a Calgary bus driver, made national headlines for claiming that, because of his religious beliefs, he would rather quit than drive Calgary Transit’s rainbow-decorated Ride with Pride bus. “Then quit!” was the succinct reaction of many on social media.

At first glance, the legal rights at issue appear refreshingly clear. Calgary Transit’s rainbow bus, scheduled for service in the two weeks leading up to Calgary’s Pride Parade, is a welcome celebration of the LGBTQA community, diversity, and human rights. Justifiably proud of its initiative and its positive message of inclusion, Calgary Transit responded to Mr. Rau’s concerns with a reminder that “drivers can only refuse work based on safety issues.” The human rights landscape, however, is not so definitive.

The Alberta Human Rights Act, like other provincial human rights codes, protects employees from discrimination based on their religious beliefs, including Mr. Rau’s (s. 7(1)(b)). For the most part, that means that employers cannot prefer to hire or fire an individual based on their religious views, but it also requires that when workplace rules substantially conflict with an employee’s religious beliefs, the employer has a duty to accommodate the employee to the point of undue hardship. While there is no strict formula of when hardship becomes undue, courts and human rights commissions will examine the financial cost, feasibility, and overall impact on operations of the proposed accommodation in making their determination about where to draw the line.

As a classic example, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that employers generally have a legal duty to accommodate employees compelled by faith to observe a religious day of rest (see Central Alberta Dairy Pool v Alberta, [1990] 2 SCR 489; Ontario Human Rights Commission v Simpson-Sears, [1985] 2 SCR 536). An employer’s argument that working on a particular day is an essential feature of the job necessary for all employees will usually fail to meet the threshold of undue hardship since it is almost always possible to alter work schedules and balance work commitments to allow employees to observe religious holidays and Sabbaths.  

Mr. Rau’s religious objection to driving the rainbow bus arguably gives rise to a similar duty to accommodate. It does not matter that other Christians do not share his particular views, or that others see no conflict between his beliefs and his work responsibilities. For good reason, courts have avoided arbitrating the merits of religious doctrine and its obligations. “Religion,” the Supreme Court of Canada has written, “is about freely and deeply held personal convictions or beliefs connected to an individual’s spiritual faith and integrally linked to one’s self-definition and spiritual fulfillment” (Syndicat Northcrest v Amselem, 2004 SCC 47). In other words, faith is a deeply personal matter, and individuals are entitled to define their own sense of the divine and the obligations such devotion imposes, so long as they are sincere in doing so. Mr. Rau’s position, it would seem, is that his beliefs forbid him from driving a bus specifically intended to promote a set of values for which he has sincere religious objection.  

Of course, one can imagine all sorts of demands cloaked in religious rationale which employers will not have to accommodate. No employer would have to continue to employ an employee who, for religious reasons, could only work one day a week, or one hour a day. Someone working at a call centre is unlikely to be able to convince a human rights commission that his six-month religiously-motivated vow of silence can be reasonably accommodated. There are many features of many workplaces that are not negotiable regardless of an individual’s religious convictions. For its part, Calgary Transit can insist that all drivers carry out the core demands of the job – to pick up, respect, and transport safely all members of the public – regardless of a driver’s religious views. Marriage Commissioners Appointed Under The Marriage Act (Re), 2011 SKCA 3

Crucially, human rights law also protects the users of public services from discriminatory treatment (s. 4, Alberta Human Rights Act). Individuals, businesses, and marriage commissioners seeking to avoid serving gay and lesbian clients on religious grounds have quite rightly failed to protect their right to discriminate under human rights law (see Nichols v MJ, SKQB 299; Marriage Commissioners Appointed Under The Marriage Act (Re), 2011 SKCA 3). The rainbow bus is a celebration, but also an important reminder of the need for vigilance in protecting the equality rights of the LGBTQA community.  

But each case must turn on its own facts. In the case of Calgary’s rainbow bus, Mr. Rau finds himself in a conflict between his religious beliefs and the potential demands of his job. He should not have to lose his employment because of that conflict since his religious beliefs are easily accommodated well short of undue hardship. Just as employees can be accommodated by not scheduling them to work on a particular day for religious reasons, Mr. Rau can be accommodated by not scheduling him to drive a particular bus over a short two-week period for religious reasons.  

Bravo to Calgary Transit for its rainbow bus and its celebration of human rights. Hopefully, the rainbow will also remind them of the deep diversity in their own workforce. Employees have rights too, including the right to religious views that seem objectionable and difficult to fathom. The right to those religious beliefs and the practices they entail are never absolute, but Canadian human rights law has created a sensitive and sensible middle path by which religious views can often be accommodated in our places of work. And that too, is worth celebrating.