Blainey v Ontario Hockey Association: Difference between revisions
No edit summary Tag: Reverted |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''''Blainey v Ontario Hockey Association''''' (1986) 54 O.R. (2d) 513 is a famous decision of the [[Court of Appeal for Ontario]] on the relationship between the ''[[Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]]'' and the [[Ontario Human Rights Code]]. The Court held that Human Rights Codes in general are statutes and so must conform with the ''Charter''. |
'''''Blainey v Ontario Hockey Association''''' (1986) 54 O.R. (2d) 513 is a famous decision of the [[Court of Appeal for Ontario]] on the relationship between the ''[[Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]]'' and the [[Ontario Human Rights Code]]. The Court held that Human Rights Codes in general are statutes and so must conform with the ''Charter''. |
||
[[Justine Blainey-Broker|Justine Blainey]] was excluded from playing in the boys [[ice hockey|hockey]] league by the [[ |
[[Justine Blainey-Broker|Justine Blainey]] was excluded from playing in the boys [[ice hockey|hockey]] league by the [[Ontario Hockey Association]]. She was unable to bring a claim against the OHA because the Ontario Human Rights Code contained a provision that allowed male-only sports teams and since the OHA was a private organization the ''Charter'' did not apply to it. Instead she challenged the constitutionality of the provision of the Human Rights Code as a violation of the equality provision of the ''Charter''. |
||
The Court held that the exception for sports teams violated [[Section Fifteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|section 15]] of the ''Charter'' in a way that could not be justified under [[Section One of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|section 1]], and struck down the provision. |
The Court held that the exception for sports teams violated [[Section Fifteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|section 15]] of the ''Charter'' in a way that could not be justified under [[Section One of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|section 1]], and struck down the provision. |
||
Latest revision as of 19:47, 1 June 2022
Blainey v Ontario Hockey Association (1986) 54 O.R. (2d) 513 is a famous decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario on the relationship between the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Ontario Human Rights Code. The Court held that Human Rights Codes in general are statutes and so must conform with the Charter.
Justine Blainey was excluded from playing in the boys hockey league by the Ontario Hockey Association. She was unable to bring a claim against the OHA because the Ontario Human Rights Code contained a provision that allowed male-only sports teams and since the OHA was a private organization the Charter did not apply to it. Instead she challenged the constitutionality of the provision of the Human Rights Code as a violation of the equality provision of the Charter.
The Court held that the exception for sports teams violated section 15 of the Charter in a way that could not be justified under section 1, and struck down the provision.
The crown sided with Blainey as the Ontario Hockey Association was in violation of section 15 of the charter of rights and freedoms. Justine Blainey was later included in the division.
See also
[edit]External links
[edit]
.svg){kind=small}  | This article about Canadian law is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |