Prof Hastie’s recently published report analyzes substantive decisions on the merits concerning workplace sexual harassment at each of the BC and Ontario Human Rights Tribunals from 2000-2018, with a view to identifying how the law of sexual harassment is understood, interpreted and applied by the Tribunals’ adjudicators. In particular, this report examines whether, and to what extent, gender-based stereotypes and myths known to occur in criminal justice proceedings arise in the human rights context.
Prof Hastie’s talk will be followed by brief commentary from Professor Janet Mosher and Osgoode McMurtry Fellow Fathima Cader.
2:30 PM – 4:00 PM
Room 2028, Osgoode Hall Law School
Refreshments served, PLEASE RSVP!
(from my better late than never, can it be November? category, i meant to have this up in September…)
TRU Prof Sam Singer and TRU student Stephanie Weidmann’s short piece highlighting some Canadian caselaw in Art/iculation, an interdisciplinary print and digital magazine, is available here. Prof Singer is an OBA Foundation Chief Justice of Ontario Fellow in Legal Ethics and Professionalism Research (2019-2020) for The Ethics of Trans Competent Lawyering and Judging, see here. Sam is very keen on tax and tax policy, see here.
Interested in the report mentioned at FN1 in Fighting for Justice? For more information about the Canadian Human Rights Commission report, “Trans Rights, Gender Identity, and Gender Expression in Canada”, please contact the author, Samuel Singer.
Finally! Sam also has a piece in LGBTQ2+ LAW: PRACTICE ISSUES AND ANALYSIS edited by Joanna Radbord. IFLS is a co sponsor of the launch for the book, which is coming up: Monday November 25 630-830 at Glad Day Books
Chapter 1: The Gay Agenda: A Short History of Queer Rights in Canada (1969-2018)
Chapter 2: LGBTQ2+ Cultural Competency
Chapter 3: Human Rights
Chapter 4: LGBTQ2+ Equality Claims Under the Charter
Chapter 5: Trans Competent Lawyering
Chapter 6: Family Law
Chapter 7: Polyamorous and Non-Dyadic Relationships
Chapter 8: Conflict of Laws
Chapter 9: Estate Planning Issues
Chapter 10: LGBTQ2+ Immigration Issues
Chapter 11: Children and Youth Legal Issues
Chapter 12: Criminal Law and Public Health
Find an excerpt here on SLAW.
here on SLAW.
You can find the book for order here, and check Carissima on Twitter @cmathen in case she’s doing a launch event that you can get to (Winter Semester, Osgoode). If you are on twitter and don’t follow her, recommend that you do, for live tweeting all kinds of things, for instant digests of SCC new releases, for fun. Oh, and if you want the JCPC Person’s case itself, here it is on Canlii.
(excerpt from Chapter 7 “Interpretation and Rights” with thanks to Carissima)
It took time for the Persons Case to make its mark. [A]side from a few other Privy Council decisions, it went virtually unmentioned until 1979. In its own time, academic discussion of the reference was uniformly negative. British scholar Berriedale Keith said that ‘no decision of the Privy Council is probably harder to defend as sound in law ’. GF Henderson was equally cutting, charging that the case was ‘not written in strict accordance with well understood legal principles ’; that the federal government had manipulated the situation to secure its preferred outcome; and that the JCPC had by ‘ judicial legislation … altered the constitution of the Senate of Canada ’.
More positive regard began to emerge in the 1970s, a time of greater awareness of women’s rights and an increasing role for feminist advocacy. After being mentioned in some early Charter decisions, Edwards quickly assumed more prominence. The reference enjoyed an intriguing duality. It was used to chart a different path to constitutional interpretation compared to the more formalist approach of the Supreme Court of the 1970s. At the same time, being so deeply rooted in the country ’s legal history, it may have rendered the Court ’s momentous interpretative choices, a number of which are explored later in this chapter, less radical.
The critiques of the Persons Case are reminiscent of the debates in the United States over the soundness of the Brown v Board of Education (Topeka) landmark decision. Although it is possible to legitimately object to the judicial craft in each, and many commentators do, few take the next step and claim that the decision should be cast aside. In Canada, such a position would be repudiated by all but the most implacable defenders of constitutional minimalism. The hesitation to fully back the implications of such a critique illustrates the opinion’s power. For, while the reference may attract debate over its precise contours, and future applications, there is in almost all quarters an acceptance of its legacy and continuing force.”
Have you or your colleagues got New In Print academic/legal work that could be featured here? Let me know via email.
Bethany Hastie of Allard (UBC) Law has just published Workplace Sexual Harassment: Assessing the Effectiveness of Human Rights Law in Canada (available here, open access). Hastie analyzes decisions in workplace sexual harassment at each of the BC and Ontario Human Rights Tribunals from 2000-2018. She’s particularly focused on “whether, and to what extent, gender-based stereotypes and myths known to occur in criminal justice proceedings arise in the human rights context”.
For instance, one finding: “the requirement that a complainant establish that the impugned conduct was “unwelcome” provides the most direct and expansive space for gender-based myths and stereotypes to influence the analysis and outcome of sexual harassment complaints”.
The Report concludes with 8 recommendations. An important resource.
Find the full “jot” by Kim Brooks here
"I want to draw attention to two features in this short review. These features are not tied, given this more general audience, to the tax context of the decisions. That’s worth underlining: this is a volume that is worth reading for scholars in any area of law with an interest in feminist legal theory and practice and how feminists approach legal and factual questions."