Jump to content

Seneca College v Bhadauria: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m forgot the heard date! whoops; added it now.
m WP:STUBSPACING followup
 
(7 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 6: Line 6:
|ruling = Appeal allowed.
|ruling = Appeal allowed.
|SCC=1980-1982
|SCC=1980-1982
|Unanimous = Laskin CJ.
|Unanimous = Laskin CJ
|NotParticipating=Martland and Ritchie JJ.
|NotParticipating=Martland and Ritchie JJ
}}'''''Seneca College v Bhadauria''''', [1981] 2 SCR 181 is a leading decision of the [[Supreme Court of Canada]] on [[civil rights]] and [[tort]] law. The Court ruled that there can be no [[common law]] tort of [[discrimination]].
}}

'''''Seneca College v. Bhadauria''''', [1981] 2 S.C.R. 181 is a leading decision of the [[Supreme Court of Canada]] on [[civil rights]] and [[tort]] law. The Court ruled that there can be no [[common law]] tort of [[discrimination]].


==Background==
==Background==
Bhadauria, an East Indian woman, was qualified to teach in [[Ontario]] and had seven years experience. She had applied ten times to [[Seneca College]] but was never granted an interview. Bhadauria claimed that she was not interviewed because of her ethnicity.
Bhadauria, an East Indian woman, was qualified to teach in Ontario and had seven years experience. She had applied ten times to [[Seneca College]] but was never granted an interview. Bhadauria claimed that she was not interviewed because of her ethnicity.


She argued that the college had violated the common law tort of discrimination. The Ontario Court of Appeal accepted the existence of such a tort. Since Bhadauria could show that such a right existed and that it had been violated by the practices of the college she would be entitled to remedy.
She argued that the college had violated the common law tort of discrimination. The Court of Appeal for Ontario accepted the existence of such a tort. Since Bhadauria could show that such a right existed and that it had been violated by the practices of the college she would be entitled to remedy.


==Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada==
==Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada==
Line 26: Line 24:
[[Category:Canadian tort case law]]
[[Category:Canadian tort case law]]
[[Category:Supreme Court of Canada cases]]
[[Category:Supreme Court of Canada cases]]
[[Category:Supreme Court of Canada case articles without infoboxes]]
[[Category:1981 in Canadian case law]]
[[Category:1981 in Canadian case law]]
[[Category:Seneca College]]
[[Category:Seneca College]]
[[Category:Minority rights]]
[[Category:Employment discrimination case law]]





Latest revision as of 13:30, 12 September 2024

Seneca College v Bhadauria
Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: May 12–13, 1981
Judgment: June 22, 1981
Citations[1981] 2 SCR 181
RulingAppeal allowed.
Court membership
Chief Justice: Bora Laskin
Puisne Justices: Ronald Martland, Roland Ritchie, Brian Dickson, Jean Beetz, Willard Estey, William McIntyre, Julien Chouinard, Antonio Lamer
Reasons given
Unanimous reasons byLaskin CJ
Martland and Ritchie JJ took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Seneca College v Bhadauria, [1981] 2 SCR 181 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on civil rights and tort law. The Court ruled that there can be no common law tort of discrimination.

Background

[edit]

Bhadauria, an East Indian woman, was qualified to teach in Ontario and had seven years experience. She had applied ten times to Seneca College but was never granted an interview. Bhadauria claimed that she was not interviewed because of her ethnicity.

She argued that the college had violated the common law tort of discrimination. The Court of Appeal for Ontario accepted the existence of such a tort. Since Bhadauria could show that such a right existed and that it had been violated by the practices of the college she would be entitled to remedy.

Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada

[edit]

The Court allowed the appeal. It held that there was no tort of discrimination in Canadian common law. The court reasoned that a tort of discrimination was unnecessary since Bhadauria already had access to the human rights regime.

[edit]