|
A board of inquiry said it didn't need
to make a decision in the case of a Regina man who complained
about discrimination in pension benefits because legislative changes
were recently made that resolve the dispute.
Brian Nicurity complained to the Commission
in 1993 that SaskPower's pension plan discriminated against him
on the basis of marital status. Nicurity divorced his wife of
30 years after he retired in 1989. They agreed that all pension
benefits were matrimonial property and were to be divided equally.
However, if Brian Nicurity died before his ex-wife, she was not
entitled to the survivor's allowance that would have been hers
had they still been married.
Nicurity wanted his former wife to receive
the survivor's benefit should he predecease her and filed a complaint
with the commission. When the case was argued before the board of inquiry in October 1995, the pension plan's
|
|
definition of spouse
excluded people who were divorced. The Commission argued that
since the couple where still married when Nicurity retired, his
ex-wife was entitled to the survivor benefits. For her to lose
that benefit solely because she was divorced was discriminatory.
In June 1996 the government changed
The Superannuation (Supplementary Provisions) Act, which
governs the pensions of public employees. The act now defines
a spouse as the person who is the spouse of the superannuate
when he or she retires. Under this new definition, Nicurity's
ex-wife is entitled to a survivor's allowance.
In December 1996, the board of inquiry,
Regina lawyer John Harms, said that since the issue raised by
the case was now moot, no decision was required.
|
The Canadian Association of Statutory
Human Rights Agencies (CASHRA) will be asking the Supreme Court
of Canada for intervenor status in the Vriend case. All
provincial human rights agencies, including the Saskatchewan commission,
are members of CASHRA.
The Vriend case argued that Alberta's
human rights law must provide protection from discrimination on
the basis of sexual orientation and that not to do so is a violation
of the Charter.
Delwin Vriend was hired as a laboratory
co-ordinator by King's College in Edmonton and was fired three
years later when his employers learned that he was gay. Vriend
made a complaint to the Alberta Human Rights Commission but it
would not accept his complaint - Alberta's Individual Rights Protection
Act (IRPA) does not cover sexual orientation. Alberta is one of
three provinces in Canada which does not include sexual orientation
as a protected category in its human rights law.
Vriend then took legal action under
the Charter. He argued that IRPA violated the Charter because
it didn't provide protection from discrimination based on sexual
orientation. The Court of Queen's Bench agreed but the Alberta
Court of Appeal said that not having sexual orientation in IRPA
wasn't a Charter violation. Now it's been appealed to the Supreme
Court of Canada.
| |
A number of organizations - 11 so far
- have been granted intervenor status and will be making submissions
to the Supreme Court on this issue. CASHRA president Keith Norton
(also Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission)
said that the case was a very important one. "The ultimate
decision by the Supreme Court could have ramifications reaching
far beyond the facts of this case alone and could determine the
impact of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on
human rights law in every jurisdiction in Canada."
Air travel more accessible
Passengers with disabilities can look
forward to more accessible airplanes thanks to a new Code of Practice
introduced by the Canadian Transportation Agency.
The Code applies to airplanes with 30
or more passenger seats. It establishes criteria for signage,
lighting, stairs, floors, space for guide dogs, and tactile row
markers.
Aircraft with more than one aisle should
have at least one washroom that is accessible to people with disabilities,
including passengers in an on-board wheelchair. |
|
Previous Page | Cover Page | Home | Next Page