40:
255:
of choice. On the section 1 analysis, Bastarache J considered the positive goals of the provision. He saw merit in having a law that encouraged naturalization and increased the value of citizenship. He further observed that the negative impact of the exclusion was sufficiently small to warrant
238:, Parliament was placing an additional burden on already disadvantaged group. He said that it was well settled that foreign nationals are a group that do suffer from stereotypes, marginalization, and historical disadvantage, but the Act does not attempt to compensate for this.
217:
Several foreign nationals applied to the federal government for employment. Section 16(4)(c) of the PSEA gave preference to
Canadian citizens when allocating applicants to different departments. The foreign nationals applied to the
247:. The dignity inquiry requires the subjective view of the claimant to be rationally grounded in circumstances that a reasonable would share that experience. He found that denial of
243:
172:
234:
Bastarache J wrote for the majority in upholding the provision. In his application of the Law test for section 15, he noted that by creating the distinction between citizen and
322:
193:
327:
270:
201:(PSEA), which gave preference to citizens when referring to departments, was discriminatory. The violation was saved under section 1 of the
332:
222:
to strike out the provision. The
Federal Court held the provision violated section 15 but was saved by section 1. The
248:
283:
223:
219:
188:
45:
304:
191:
on whether preference on basis of citizenship infringed equality guarantee under section 15(1) of the
39:
291:
95:
252:
114:
287:
235:
102:
206:
130:
106:
265:
316:
122:
110:
61:
241:
Bastarache J spent some time considering the element of "dignity" introduced in
126:
17:
118:
187:, 1 SCR 769, 2002 SCC 23 is a leading decision of the
244:
Law v Canada (Minister of
Employment and Immigration)
173:
Law v Canada (Minister of
Employment and Immigration)
165:
157:
149:
141:
136:
86:
78:
70:
60:
53:
32:
8:
256:justification by the valuable objective.
297:
194:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
251:impacted a significant element of the
29:
271:List of Supreme Court of Canada cases
7:
305:SCC Case Information - Docket 27427
197:. The Court found that the federal
25:
161:McLachlin CJ and L'Heureux‑Dubé J
323:Section Fifteen Charter case law
38:
205:as a reasonable limitation on
1:
328:Supreme Court of Canada cases
199:Public Service Employment Act
27:Supreme Court of Canada case
349:
333:2002 in Canadian case law
170:
91:
37:
249:professional development
307:Supreme Court of Canada
284:Supreme Court of Canada
224:Federal Court of Appeal
220:Federal Court of Canada
189:Supreme Court of Canada
66:2002 SCC 23, 1 SCR 769
56:Judgment: March 8, 2002
54:Hearing: June 12, 2001
46:Supreme Court of Canada
286:decision available at
226:upheld the decision.
230:Reasons of the court
96:Beverley McLachlin
253:fundamental right
180:
179:
115:Michel Bastarache
16:(Redirected from
340:
308:
302:
236:foreign national
103:Charles Gonthier
100:Puisne Justices:
87:Court membership
82:appeal dismissed
42:
30:
21:
18:Lavoie v. Canada
348:
347:
343:
342:
341:
339:
338:
337:
313:
312:
311:
303:
299:
279:
262:
232:
215:
207:equality rights
184:Lavoie v Canada
131:Marie Deschamps
107:Frank Iacobucci
98:
55:
49:
33:Lavoie v Canada
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
346:
344:
336:
335:
330:
325:
315:
314:
310:
309:
296:
295:
294:
278:
277:External links
275:
274:
273:
268:
266:Foreign worker
261:
258:
231:
228:
214:
211:
178:
177:
168:
167:
163:
162:
159:
155:
154:
151:
147:
146:
143:
139:
138:
134:
133:
93:Chief Justice:
89:
88:
84:
83:
80:
76:
75:
72:
68:
67:
64:
58:
57:
51:
50:
43:
35:
34:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
345:
334:
331:
329:
326:
324:
321:
320:
318:
306:
301:
298:
293:
289:
285:
282:Full text of
281:
280:
276:
272:
269:
267:
264:
263:
259:
257:
254:
250:
246:
245:
239:
237:
229:
227:
225:
221:
212:
210:
208:
204:
200:
196:
195:
190:
186:
185:
175:
174:
169:
164:
160:
156:
152:
148:
144:
140:
137:Reasons given
135:
132:
128:
124:
123:Louise Arbour
120:
116:
112:
111:John C. Major
108:
104:
101:
97:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
65:
63:
59:
52:
48:
47:
41:
36:
31:
19:
300:
242:
240:
233:
216:
202:
198:
192:
183:
182:
181:
176:, 1 SCR 497
171:
166:Laws applied
145:Bastarache J
99:
92:
44:
150:Concurrence
127:Louis LeBel
317:Categories
213:Background
119:Ian Binnie
71:Docket No.
62:Citations
260:See also
153:Arbour J
142:Majority
203:Charter
158:Dissent
292:CanLII
79:Ruling
74:27427
288:LexUM
290:and
129:,
319::
209:.
125:,
121:,
117:,
113:,
109:,
105:,
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
