Good to read this news out of the Supreme Court of Canada this morning:
HUMAN RIGHTS: “POLITICAL BELIEF” DISCRIMINATION
The Respondents were a group of occasional provincial government employees and members of the Provincial Liberal Party, who were either not recalled to work or had their hours of work reduced after the Provincial Conservatives came into power in P.E.I. in 1996. They filed complaints with the Human Rights Commission alleging “political belief” discrimination. While the cases were pending, the Conservative government amended the Human Rights Act , limiting the amount the employees could recover, and preventing them from seeking other remedies available to complaints brought on other grounds of discrimination. The Respondents alleged that the amendments violated ss. 15(1), 2(b) and 2(d) of the Charter. The Prince Edward Island Supreme Court declared the statutory limitation on the available remedies for “political belief” discrimination and the compensation formula prescribed by ss. 28.4(2) to (5) of the P.E.I. Human Rights Act contrary to ss. 15(1), 2(b) and 2(d) of the Charter , and not saved by s. 1. The Appeal Division unanimously upheld the trial judge’s decision with respect to s. 2(d) of the Charter. The Appeal Division did not address the issues of ss. 15(1) or 2(b). Government of Prince Edward Island v. Merrill Condon, et al. (P.E.I. C.A., February 16, 2006)(31416) “with costs”
As I have noted here before and provided more background to the related rulings under the “political rights” heading, I was involved in the original level of this matter before I left private practice. The only thing that diminishes the ruling today and its implication that there is no argument to be made in favour of imposing unconstitutionality upon our political freedom in Canada, is that I was really hoping to get to sit in on a hearing, watching at the back in the cheap seats in the biggest of the courts of the land.