TITLE

Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education

AUTHOR(S)
Pothier, Dianne
PUB. DATE
June 2006
SOURCE
Canadian Journal of Women & the Law;2006, Vol. 18 Issue 1, p121
SOURCE TYPE
Academic Journal
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
In Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education, the Women's Court of Canada reverses the 1997 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, which rejected a presumption of integrated education for disabled students. The Women's Court finds that although the Supreme Court did not actually invoke the terminology of "separate but equal," that is the essence of their decision to find no breach of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms arising from segregated placement. According" to the Women's Court, the Supreme Court's rejection of a presumption of integration amounts to the adoption of a hierarchy of difference, which is inconsistent with the equality guarantee in section 15 of the Charter. The Women's Court finds that a constitutional presumption of integrated education for disabled students is necessary for two reasons. First, such a presumption is required to counteract the historic legacy by which, segregation has connoted inferior status. Second, a constitutional presumption of integration is necessary to place an onus on the state to make the integrated educational environment genuinely inclusive and to meet diverse needs. Such an onus puts the responsibility on the state to demonstrate the specific conditions and circumstances under which an integrated educational setting cannot meet the best interests of disabled students, which is a matter of section 1 justification. In any context in which segregated education is sought to be imposed, section 15 itself demands integrated education. Thus, the Women's Court of Canada concludes that section 15 is breached in the present case. As a result of mootness, however, section 1 is not addressed.
ACCESSION #
28861351

 

Related Articles

  • Litigation privilege: transient or timeless? Blank v Canada (Minister of Justice). Goudkamp, James // International Journal of Evidence & Proof;Dec2007, Vol. 11 Issue 4, p322 

    The article presents an opinion on the Canada Supreme Court's judgment in the case entitled "Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice)", regarding litigation privilege. The Supreme Court ruled that litigation privilege ends when the proceedings that gave rise to it are completed. The implications of...

  • Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration). R�aume, Denise // Canadian Journal of Women & the Law;2006, Vol. 18 Issue 1, p143 

    The judgment of the Women's Court of Canada in Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) traces the emergence of dignity as the touchstone of section 15 equality rights, and reviews the factors relevant to finding a violation of dignity from the Supreme Court of Canada's 1999...

  • Standing Apart: Separate Concurrence and the Modern Supreme Court of Canada, 1984-2006. McCormick, Peter // McGill Law Journal;Spring2008, Vol. 53 Issue 1, p137 

    The article focuses on the Modern Supreme Court of Canada, and separate concurrences as a common feature of common law court decisions. From the results of the analysis of the use of separate concurrences by the Supreme Court of Canada under Chief Justices Dickson, Lamer and McLachlin, the...

  • Danier, D&O and Disclosure. Bourk, Patrick; Pepper, Garth // Canadian Underwriter;Dec2007, Vol. 74 Issue 12, p52 

    The article discusses the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada which was issued on October 12, 2007, and awarded costs against the plaintiff in the case of Kerr v. Danier Leather Inc., and its impact on directors and officers (D&O) insurers. The plaintiffs, a class action group of investors,...

  • Turning the Tables on Police. Cianfarani, Pino // Canadian Underwriter;Dec2007, Vol. 74 Issue 12, p56 

    The article discusses the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth, which was issued on October 4, 2007, and recognized the right of suspects to sue police officers for the tort of negligent investigation. The ruling mandates that any alleged improper police...

  • Sommes-nous dignes? L'égalité et l'arrêt Gosselin. Jackman, Martha // Canadian Journal of Women & the Law;2005, Vol. 17 Issue 1, p161 

    The author examines the Supreme Court of Canada's judgment in Gosselin v. Quebec (Attorney General) and considers to what extent this decision represents a step backwards for women's equality in the poverty context. She concludes that the Gosselin case demonstrates yet again that the feminist...

  • DISCARDING REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS OF PRIVACY: A CRITIQUE OF R. V. PATRICK. MACKINNON, WILLIAM // Alberta Law Review;Jun2010, Vol. 47 Issue 4, p1037 

    This article discusses the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in a case about privacy. The defendant claimed a reasonable expectation of privacy in his garbage when the authorities filed charges against him. Police officers evidence of drug production in the content of his garbage. They...

  • WHAT HAS DUNSMUIR TAUGHT? WOOLLEY, ALICE; FLUKER, SHAUN // Alberta Law Review;Jun2010, Vol. 47 Issue 4, p1017 

    This article discusses the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in a case about how courts should review decisions of administrative tribunals. It looks at trends in the identification of the standard of review, including the reliance of the Alberta Court of Appeal on the pragmatic and...

  • Seaboyer v. R.: A Case Comment. Shaffer, Martha // Canadian Journal of Women & the Law;1992, Vol. 5 Issue 1, p202 

    In R. v. Seaboyer; R. v. Gayme, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down section 276 of the Criminal Code, the so-called rape shield provision, which restricted the introduction of evidence of the complainant's sexual past in sexual assault cases. After reviewing the Court's decision, the author...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of THE LIBRARY OF VIRGINIA

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics