Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms sections

24 Mar 201721 Jul 2017

Damages awarded to the mother of a child who was the victim of discrimination

The mother of a child who was the victim of discrimination based on a handicap was awarded $7,500 in moral damages by the Quebec Court of Appeal in a ruling that reaffirms and advances the rights of parents, according to educational and human rights lawyers.

In a closely-watched ruling by the province’s educational sector, the Montreal School Commission was also ordered to pay an equal amount in moral damages to the child, who is afflicted with Down syndrome, after the appeal court found that it discriminated against him when it failed to implement necessary accommodations to teach him in the first two years of high school.

However the appeal court also found that the school commission did not act in a discriminatory manner when it decided that it would be in the best interests of the child, given his special needs, if he pursued his studies in a specialized school rather than a regular school. “It appeared that, from an educational standpoint, the difference between X and his classmates was too great and prevented (him) from truly integrating or socializing,” remarked the appeal court in a 22-page decision in Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse c. Commission scolaire de Montréal 2017 QCCA 286.

“This is an important decision because a trend has emerged where the courts refused to grant damages to parents in similar cases,” said Lysiane Clément-Major, a Montreal lawyer with the Quebec Human Rights Commission. “There have been several decisions that refused to grant damages to parents because the courts held that it was not the parents who were the victim of discrimination. This ruling is very important for the Commission because it establishes the rights of parents.”

In a decision that partly overturned a decision by the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal, the appeal court found that the parents of children who are victims of discrimination based on a handicap can claim compensation for themselves. Heeding guidance by the Supreme Court of Canada in Infineon Technologies AG v. Option consommateurs, 2013 SCC 59, the appeal court noted that while Quebec civil law does not permit compensation for indirect damage, it does allow for damages to be awarded to indirect victims. As the SCC points out, an indirect victim is someone who suffers an autonomous injury after the commission of a fault, where the damage suffered was the logical, direct and immediate result of the fault. In this case, the harm suffered by the mother arose from the from the discriminatory treatment inflicted upon her son, found the appeal court. Her despondency, stress, worry and feeling of powerlessness surfaced when her son could not assert his rights personally, and therefore it fell upon her to represent and defend the interests of her son against the school commission, added the appeal court.

“With children suffering from an intellectual deficiency that prevents them from protecting their own rights, parents are, in some respects, a way to palliate this handicap, and can be considered as the victims of the discriminatory treatment endured by their child,” said the appeal court.

But warns Bernard Jacob, a lawyer with Morency Avocats who plead the case for the Montreal School Commission, the decision does not necessarily mean that the parents of a child who suffered discrimination will themselves always be granted damages. “It’s far from automatic,” said Jacob, an expert in education law. “The ruling states that there must be evidence that the parents themselves suffered harm – that’s what’s important.”

The unanimous ruling has even wider implications for the educational sector in Quebec. The Quebec appeal court once again rejected the notion that schools face a peremptory norm that compels them to integrate and accommodate handicapped children into the mainstream school system. And just as importantly, it reaffirmed that it falls upon the Quebec Human Rights Commission to prove that a school commission did not respect the interests of a handicapped child.

“The Quebec appeal court seized the opportunity to clarify the issue of burden of proof which is how the Quebec Human Rights Commission more or less insidiously sought to reintroduce the notion that there should be a peremptory or quasi-peremptory norm that presumes discrimination has occurred unless the (handicapped) child is in the mainstream school system,” noted Montreal lawyer Yann Bernard with Langlois Avocats who represents school boards.

The Quebec Human Rights Commission argued that the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal erred by imposing on it the burden of proving that the school commission did not act in the interests of a handicapped child. It further argued that two previous rulings issued by the appeal court contradict each other, with one (Commission scolaire des Phares c. Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse 2006 QCCA 82) maintaining that integrating a child is not a peremptory norm while a more recent one (Commission scolaire des Phares c. Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse 2012 QCCA 988) asserting that integration is a goal that school commissions should prioritize.

The Quebec appeal court rejected the arguments, pointing out that the Tribunal “reconciled” both Quebec previous appeal court rulings, both of which followed guidance issued by the SCC in Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education, [1997] 1 SCR 241. In Eaton, the SCC held that while integration should be recognized as the norm of general application because of the benefits it generally provides, a presumption in favour of integrated schooling would work to the disadvantage of pupils who require special education in order to achieve equality.

The Tribunal therefore correctly held that the interests of the child outweigh the presumption of general application, said the appeal court. It follows then that a school commission must evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the student as well as assess the advantages the student may acquire from attending regular class. When the school commission concludes that integration into a regular school setting may prove to be beneficial to the student, it must integrate the child by implementing necessary accommodations, so long as those accommodations do not represent an undue burden to the school commission. The Tribunal also correctly found that it is up to the Quebec Human Rights Commission to prove, based on the balance of probabilities, that the school commission acted in a discriminatory fashion when it decides not to integrate a child into mainstream schooling.

“The fundamental objective behind this exercise is the interest of the child,” said Jacob. “The Quebec Human Rights Commission sought to force school commissions to prove that specialized schooling was in the best interest of the student. We argued that it was up to the Commission to demonstrate that regular classes with necessary accommodations was in the best interests of the student. So in terms of burden of proof, this is an important decision.”

The Quebec Human Rights Commission is considering filing an application for leave to appeal before the SCC. It maintains that it should be up to school commissions to prove that the decision that they made regarding the kind of schooling that a handicapped student receives is in the best interests of the child. “They made the decision, and they have all of the information when they evaluated the child,” said Clément-Major.

This story was originally published in The Lawyers Weekly.

12 Jan 201630 Sep 2020

Right to protest in the streets is a constitutionally protected right

An article of Quebec’s Highway Safety Code that was used to break up demonstrations has been repealed after a Quebec Superior Court judge held that it was unconstitutional in a ruling that reaffirmed that protesting in the streets is a constitutionally protected right.

Justice Guy Cournoyer acquitted Gabriella Garbeau, one of 150 protestors who were fined during a 2011 anti-police brutality march in downtown Montreal under Article 500.1 of Quebec’s Highway Safety Code, which prohibits anyone from using a vehicle or other obstacle to block a highway “during a concerted action intended to obstruct in any way vehicular traffic.”

In a ruling applauded by civil rights activists, Justice Cournoyer overturned a municipal court ruling and found that Article 500.1 was in violation of Garbeau’s right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly as protected by the Canadian and Quebec charter of rights. Justice Cournoyer added that there “is no doubt” that these rights protect the right to express oneself on public roads even though “conveying messages” is not the primary purpose of city streets. But the “fact that they were historically used for expression showed” that public roads can be suitable “for exercising the right to freedom of expression,” noted Justice Cournoyer, heeding guidance provided by the Supreme Court of Canada in Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] 1 SCR 19, 2011 SCC 2.

“This is really an important precedent, and it’s something that we want to use in another cases and share with other organizations in other countries,” remarked Cara Zwibel, director of the fundamental freedoms program with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Under Article 500.1, organizers of demonstrations had to obtain authorization, as is the case in many cities across the country. But the prior approval scheme under Article 500.1 did not provide clear, “precise, and understandable” criteria that allowed organizers to know what requirements they needed to fulfil in order to obtain a permit, noted Justice Cournoyer. Nor did the law detail conditions under which the approval could be revoked. Indeed, the article did not even spell out who was responsible for approving or rejecting the application. “In fact, according to the evidence, no prior approval scheme was implemented nor established,” said Justice Cournoyer in his 92-page ruling in Garbeau c. Montréal (Ville de), 2015 QCCS 5246. “This process was not illusory, it was inexistent.”

The Attorney General of Quebec argued that the law implicitly stated that it was municipal police forces who were responsible for such decisions. But Justice Cournoyer noted that law did not explicitly confer the police with such powers. Nor does the law explicitly state that police were acting as a city’s representative, with the power to authorize demonstrations. At best there was an “informal process of tolerance” in which police exercised discretionary powers to manage and supervise protests, added Justice Cournoyer.

“The judge notes that one cannot rely on police to apply a law correctly when the article is so vague that it could lead to a constitutional violation,” noted Sibel Ataogul, a Montreal lawyer with Melançon Marceau Grenier & Sciortino who represented the Quebec Civil Liberties Union who were interveners in the case. “What’s also very interesting about the decision is that it clearly states that when the legislator delegates such powers to cities, as was the case here, they cannot sub-delegate such powers to the police forces. Police are there to ensure security but they should not be able to take the political decision of deciding who can demonstrate or not, especially without clear criteria.”

Justice Cournoyer also notes that a demonstration can be considered to be peaceful even though a small number of protesters might have committed criminal or regulatory offenses. He added that merely because a person was present at a time when illegal acts were committed during a protest one cannot necessarily conclude that the individual was either encouraging the illegal acts or was trying to help the perpetrators to flee.

“That is a very important finding of the decision because it clearly states that one cannot use violence by some protesters as a pretext to consider the demonstration unlawful,” noted Louis-Philippe Lampron, a law professor who teaches human rights at the Université Laval in Quebec City. “That is the problem with Article 500.1. It was far too easy to declare a protest illegal in spite of the importance of being to protest collectively in a democratic society. The judge underlines the danger of unduly limiting that right.”

According to Zwibel, protests are frequently declared illegal because of the illegal actions of a few individuals, and that “totally undermines” the right to express oneself and to assemble peacefully as it plays on the notion of guilt by association. “The finding that that the actions of a few don’t render an otherwise peacefully assembly no longer peaceful is really an important part of the decision,” said Zwibel.

That doesn’t mean that police will be hindered from arresting violent demonstrators, warned Marie-Claude St-Amant, a Montreal lawyer who represented Garbeau. The decision clearly states that if protesters are committing illegal acts that police should arrest those individuals but neither does it give them carte blanche to declare a demonstration illegal and breach the fundamental rights of “all protesters to express themselves,” said St-Amant, who also practices at the law firm Melançon Marceau Grenier & Sciortino.

Justice Cournoyer’s decision could have an impact on a class action that was launched following a series of mass arrests and fines, under Article 500.1, at a 2012 demonstration in Hull, added St-Amant. It could also have a bearing on another case that is challenging the constitutional validity of a Montreal by-law, known as P6, that requires protesters to give police their itinerary beforehand and prohibits protesters from wearing masks.

In the meantime, Justice Cournoyer gave the provincial government six months to change Article 500.1 and to set clear rules on pre-approval schemes.

“The ruling does not prevent the use of pre-approval schemes,” said Lampron. “The judge does say that it is possible to implement such a scheme but it must be based on clear criteria, and criteria that allow for the refusal of a demonstration only for valid reasons. That is the heart of the ruling.”

23 Jul 20153 Nov 2019

Quebec Court of Appeal overturns discrimination case

In a ruling that took human rights lawyers by surprise the Quebec Court of Appeal overturned a discrimination case against aeronautics multinational Bombardier Inc. after holding that there was no evidence that a Canadian pilot of Pakistani origin was a victim of ethnic discrimination.

The Quebec Human Rights Tribunal, in a precedent-setting ruling that held that Quebec human rights laws prevail over American anti-terrorism efforts in Canada, ordered the Montreal-based firm three years ago to pay Javed Latif $319,000 in damages after it found that the pilot’s human rights were violated when Bombardier barred him from flight training at a Montreal facility because U.S. authorities had designated him a security threat. The Tribunal also ordered Bombardier to cease respecting U.S. national security decisions when pilots are seeking flight training under Canadian licences.

But in a unanimous 40-page facts-specific decision that reviewed the evidence of the case, the Quebec Court of Appeal took issue with the fact that the Tribunal based its decision almost entirely on an expert report and testimony of University of Windsor law professor Reem Anne Bahdi. The report concluded that U.S. post 9/11 security measures are generally riddled with stereotypes about Muslims and persons of Arab origin, and therefore the decision to deny Latif must have also been discriminatory. The appeal court found the report was not scientifically objective and had numerous flaws and shortcomings.

“I find it difficult to see how we can allow ourselves to make a judgment that an anti-Arab or Islamaphobic sentiment in the U.S., following the events of September 11, 2001, would be sufficient to create the necessary causal link between the refusal of American authorities to issue a security certificate and (Latif’s) Pakistani nationality,” wrote Justice Marie St-Pierre in Bombardier inc. (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center) v. Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, 2013 QCCA 1650. “In the relevant period (2003-2008), Bombardier trained a number of pilots of Arab, Muslim or Middle-Eastern descent who underwent the same security verifications and who received positive responses.”

But human rights experts are concerned that the Quebec Court of Appeal has as of late far too easily accepted motions for leave to appeal decisions issued by the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal, shown little deference to Tribunal rulings, and adopted rules of the Civil Code of Quebec to human rights matters.

“I have the impression that this case was treated as an ordinary commercial law matter that applied civil law rules,” observed Christian Brunelle, a law professor at the Université de Laval. “It ignored the quasi-constitutional status of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, its distinct nature compared to civil law, and the importance of interpreting human rights violations generously and liberally. It worries me.”

Brunelle, who is conducting a study examining how decisions by the Tribunal fare before the Quebec Court of Appeal, is all the more concerned because there are clear signs that the appeal court “seems to have great interest” in hearing cases stemming from the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal — and does not hesitate to overturn them. The appeal court normally shows much deference over the appreciation of evidence made by judges of first instance, but “for reasons I cannot explain entirely” it seems to be far less reserved when it comes to reviewing evidence from Quebec Human Rights Tribunal decisions, said Brunelle.

Its penchant to apply a “civil law analysis grid” to decide human rights issues is equally disconcerting, with the result that they are more demanding in terms of causality, added Brunelle. The Bombardier decision is a case in point. While the Tribunal held that Latif’s ethnic origins played a role, “perhaps minimal but nevertheless a real one,” in the U.S. decision to blacklist him, the appeal court found that there was no such evidence. “The question then is what evidence is required to invoke discrimination or does one have to demonstrate causality,” asked rhetorically Brunelle. “Depending on what approach one takes, there are different consequences.”

That is an issue that the Court of Appeal of Ontario grappled with over the course of the summer in Peel Law Association v. Pieters, 2013 ONCA 396. In a 45-page ruling, the Ontario appeal court held that all that is required is that there be a “connection” between the adverse treatment and the ground of discrimination. In short, the ground of discrimination must somehow be a “factor” in the adverse treatment. “The Divisional Court’s requirement of a “causal nexus” or a “causal link” between the adverse treatment and a prohibited ground seems counter to the evolution of human rights jurisprudence, which focuses on the discriminatory effects of conduct, rather than on intention and direct cause,” said Justice R.G. Juriansz.

Thanks to the different tack taken by Quebec appeal court, Quebec human rights jurisprudence is developing “differently” compared to the rest of Canada, asserts Brunelle. “It gives the impression that the Quebec Charter, which is a quasi-constitutional law, is taken less seriously in Quebec regarding issues of discrimination than is the case elsewhere,” remarked Brunelle.

The Bombardier case raises yet more troubling issues, says Montreal lawyer Alain Lecours of Lecours & Hébert. Following the appeal court decision, it now seems that another nation can impose conditions on Canadian companies operating on Canadian soil, says Lecours. A Bombardier executive testified before the Tribunal that American authorities told him not to train Latif, and that if it did, there would be “serious consequences” for Bombardier. Justice Michele Rivet of the Tribunal criticized in her ruling Bombardier for taking the U.S. designation in faith and not trying to find out whether Latif was a security risk for Canadians. “Following this decision by the Quebec Court of Appeal, we now find ourselves in a situation where a foreign state can put pressure and impose conditions on Canadian enterprises here” in Canada, remarked Lecours.

That point of view is echoed by Catherine McKenzie, who represented Latif. “The way that Bombardier acted in this case by applying an American decision, without doing any independent verification on its own as to its validity – and knowing that Latif would have no ability to know the evidence against him or appeal the decision – is permissible,” said McKenzie, a Montreal litigator with Irving Mitchell Kalichman. “That is the impact of this decision.”

A spokesperson for the Quebec Human Rights Commission declined to comment on the case while a Bombardier spokesperson would only say they are pleased by the ruling.

29 Mar 200915 Jan 2023

Cardiologist who had sex with patient ordered to pay $100,000

A cardiologist who had sexual relations with a patient was ordered by the Quebec Court of Appeal to pay $100,000 in damages to a former patient after it was determined that he had unlawfully interfered with her right to dignity and physical well-being, as per the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

In a majority decision, the Court of Appeal held that the Dr. Jean Hamel took advantage of his ex-patient’s vulnerability and the power he exercised over her to carry out actions that demonstrated “total insensitivity” towards her condition.

Continue reading “Cardiologist who had sex with patient ordered to pay $100,000”