| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| labour dispute |
charter |
|
|
Summary:
The Charter jurisprudence seems fairly uniformly to establish that distinctions based on employment status (former paras. (b) and (c) of s.31) are not analogous grounds to those enumerated in s.15 and therefore do not fall within the protection affordedby that section.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
charter |
|
Summary:
I cannot refrain from commenting on the ludicrousness of s.57 (which requires that notice be given to the Attorneys General when a constitutional issue is to be argued). Following these comments, other comments follow with the opinion that 2 features ofs.57 are worth nothing.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
jurisdiction |
charter |
|
Summary:
As I understand the decision TETREAULT-GADOURY however, it is that Boards have jurisdiction to decide whether or not a claimant is entitled to benefits but not whether or not a particular provision of a statute is to be suspended for being in violation of s.15 of the Charter.
