As Covid-19 restrictions wane across the country, legal challenges continue to be waged in human rights tribunals across the country. Issues including past or existing workplace policies and conditional access to public spaces are being challenged as discriminatory, and some provinces have even considered adding vaccination status as an enumerated ground in human rights legislation. How are human rights tribunals and practitioners responding? What are the trends coming out of recent human rights decisions? What legal distinctions are being drawn between religion and conscience, if any? What should practitioners know to best advocate for their clients?

At the same time, human rights tribunals across the country have faced significant case loads going back well before the onset of the pandemic, resulting in lengthy delays for cases to be processed, investigated, and adjudicated. How has an influx of Covid-19 related cases contributed to existing delays? What are jurisdictions across the country doing to reform their human rights tribunals to reduce delays? What can practitioners do when faced with inordinate delay?

Join our panel in discussing emerging issues in human rights law across the country. This panel will have a significant practical element, making it ideal for junior litigators and human rights practitioners.

Speakers:
Scott Newell, Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (Saskatoon, SK)
Jaime Hoopes, Roper Greyell (Vancouver, BC)
Richa Sandill, Don Valley Community Legal Services (Toronto, ON)

Moderator:
Danica McLellan, Neuman Thompson (Edmonton, AB)

In the eight years since the Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) decision, Canada’s medical assistance in dying (“MAID”) framework has evolved significantly. With the passage of Bill C-7, many Canadians with disabilities and organizations representing these communities have expressed concern about the expansion of MAID, arguing that the law violates substantive equality. Bill C-7 also extended MAID eligibility to include Canadians whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental disorder ("MAID MD-SUMC"), although implementation of this expanded eligibility will not occur until March 17, 2024. Concerns have been raised about Canadians who reportedly would not have sought access to MAID but for poverty, homelessness, or lack of supports. And UN experts have questioned whether Canada’s MAID framework is in compliance with Canada’s international human rights obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Person with Disabilities. On the other hand, arguments have been raised that existing restrictions on MAID violate the Charter rights of those seeking access to it, and that further expansions are needed.

This timely panel will focus on unpacking some of the nuanced constitutional law and human rights concerns that continue to emerge surrounding MAID in Canada. Panelists will explore the following questions, among others: Has the Supreme Court’s decision in Carter been properly understood and implemented? Does Canada’s current MAID framework pass constitutional scrutiny, particularly under s. 7 and s. 15 of the Charter? How should contentious cases or compliance concerns be reviewed and addressed? How do professional and conscientious objections fit in Canada’s MAID framework? What are the government's obligations in relation to MAID, MAID MD-SUMC, providing healthcare supports and alternatives, and ensuring oversight of MAID cases?

Speakers:
Professor Kerri Froc, University of New Brunswick (Fredericton, NB)
Professor Daphne Gilbert, University of Ottawa (Ottawa, ON)
Professor Mary Shariff, University of Manitoba (Winnipeg, MB)
Professor Jonas-Sébastien Beaudry, McGill University (Montréal, QC)

Moderator:
Garifalia Milousis, The Acacia Group (Ottawa, ON)

As provincial legislatures increasingly invoke section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, debates surrounding this so-called “notwithstanding clause” – both normative and interpretive – have intensified. This panel will provide practical and theoretical views of these important conversations, addressing both section 33’s desirability and the legal effects of the clause’s invocation. Discussion of these issues will be framed within the context of recent invocations of section 33, specifically Quebec’s Bill 21.

Speakers:
Olga Redko, IMK s.e.n.c.r.l./LLP (Montreal, QC)
Geoffrey Sigalet, University of British Columbia (Kelowna, BC)
Cara Zwibel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association (North York, ON)
Grégoire Webber, Queen’s University (Kingston, ON)

Moderator:
Richard Mailey, University of Alberta (Edmonton, AB)