barbara findlay Q.C.
  • Home
  • About barbara
    • Awards and Honours
  • Services
    • Family Law >
      • Cohabitation Agreements
      • Poly families
      • Separation Agreements
      • Divorce
      • Adoptions
    • Donor Insemination Agreements
    • Immigration for Lesbians and Gay Men
    • Estates
    • Employment Law and Wrongful Dismissal
    • Equality and Human Rights >
      • Transgender Issues: a Work in Progress
    • What We Don't Do
  • Out/Law Legal Guides
  • Case Chronology
  • Unlearning Oppression
  • Blog
  • Resources
    • Articles
  • Contact

Could it happen here?

4/19/2013

0 Comments

 
A lesbian phys ed teacher was fired after 19 years when the Catholic school board she worked for found out she was a lesbian.

The teacher worked in Columbus, Ohio.  Her sexual orientation came to light after her mother's obituary mentioned her female partner.  After a complaint from a parent who read the obituary, the diocese fired her, saying she had "violated the school's moral policy".

Could it happen in B.C.?

Shockingly, the answer is 'yes'.  Though such treatment is discriminatory, the Catholic employer gets off the hook under a provision in the B.C. Human Rights Code which exempts non-profit groups who exist to serve people on the basis of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation etc (any ground protected under the Code) from complying with human rights laws.

That's how Rape Relief is able to exclude transsexual women.  We are a non-profit, we are here to serve women, so we are free to discriminate if we want to, they argued.  They won.

So too did the Catholic Church win in a 1983 decision in which they fired a school teacher (heterosexual) because she was living with a partner outside of marriage.  The Supreme Court of Canada said that the provision of the Code gave them a licence to discriminate.

The provision of the Code was intended to prevent men from complaining that they can't get services from women's groups, or non native people from complaining that they can't get service from an aboriginal friendship centre, for example.  But it is jaw-droppingly wrong that such organizations are entitled to discriminate among the population they exist to serve. 

Under the law as it is written, a disability rights group could turn away someone with AIDS; a women's group could exclude women of colour...the list goes on.
0 Comments

HIV Disclosure: Whose Right to Know? Whose Duty to Tell?

10/15/2012

0 Comments

 
An individual has a duty to advise a sexual partner if the individual is HIV+.  If they fail to advise their partner of their HIV+ status, they can be charged with sexual assault or even aggravated sexual assault.
What if a lawyer learns that her client is HIV+, something that the police and prosecutors don't know?  In a recent case, an Ontario court held that a lawyer had a duty to disclose that status, even though her client's communication with her was protected by solicitor/client privilege.  Solicitor client privilege does not apply if disclosure of a client's confidential information would prevent a crime.  The court held that this rule applies, and the lawyer correctly disclosed her client's confidential information about their HIV status to the Crown prosecutor.  To watch an interesting video about this case, go to http://www.lawtimesnews.com/videos/hiv-and-the-law.
The case is a worrying one.  On the one hand, it is hard to argue against protecting prospective sexual partners of an individual from having sex not knowing of the client's HIV status. On the other hand, if HIV+ clients cannot tell their lawyers of their sero-status without risking disclosure to the Crown or the police, no HIV+ person would ever disclose their status to their lawyer. In turn that means that an HIV+ person is denied access to legal advice and representation, since their lawyer cannot advise them properly without all the facts.
In two other cases, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on October 5 about what a person's duty is to her or his sexual partner if she or he is HIV+.  The underlying principle is that you cannot truly consent to have sex with someone, if they are HIV+ and have not told you.  The failure to disclose vitiates your consent to the sexual act, and can turn consensual sex into sexual assault.
The Supreme Court of Canada says in its October 5 decisions ( ​R. v. Mabior [2012] S.C.J. No. 47 and R. v. D.C. [2012] S.C.J. No. 48) said that an accused does not have to disclose his or her HIV status if there is a low risk of transmission for HIV - for example, where a person has a low viral load AND uses a condom.  The conviction of one of the accused was overturned in the case in which he had a low viral load and used a condom; but permitted to stand in the case where he had a low viral load but did not use a condom.
Defence lawyers are concerned because the ruling appears to put an onus on the accused to show that he or she had a low risk of transmitting HIV when he or she had sex.  It is a basic principle of criminal law that the Crown has to prove that  a person committed a crime, and 'reverse onus' provisions such as this generally offend the Charter rights of an accused individual.
The takeaway lesson?  If you are HIV positive, do the following:  1.  Get your doctor to tell you whether or not you have a low risk of transmitting the virus.  That way, you can later show that you had an honest and reasonable belief that your risk of transmission was low.  2.  ALWAYS use a condom.  3.  To be on the safest side, or i...tell your partner you are HIV+.
0 Comments

HIV Tests Update: US approves at-home tests, BC tests every hospitalized patient

7/4/2012

0 Comments

 
Picture
The United States Food and Drug Agency has just approved the first at-home test for HIV.  The over-the counter test, based on a saliva swab, will deliver results in 20-40 minutes.
Meanwhile the BC project to offer HIV testing to everyone admitted to hospital continues.  BC leads the country in this initiative, the purpose of which is to identify HIV+ people who may not otherwise get tested.

0 Comments

Good news for HIV+ immigrants with a plan to pay for meds

6/6/2012

0 Comments

 
Generally speaking, people who are HIV+ are inadmissible to Canada because their illness will result in a disproportionate burden to Canada's health care system.  In fact, if a person has any illness which will probably cost more than an average Canadian costs in health care dollars over the next five years, he or she is "medically inadmissible".
But in Ovalle v Canada the Federal Court has said that if the immigrant can show that he has another way to fund his medical care, he is not 'medically inadmissible'. 

In Ovalle v Canada [2012] FCJ No 523, Mr. Ovalle had demonstrated that although he was HIV+ and would require about $18,000 per year in care, he would not cost the Canadian health care system disproportionately.  His doctor said he would probably enjoy good health for the next 5-10 years.  A non-profit group called "Aid for AIDS International" said it would provide free antiretroviral medication even after Mr. Ovalle moved to Canada. Mr. Ovalle's prospective Canadian employer said he would be covered under the firm's health care plan for at least $1500 per  year.   Mr. Ovalle agreed to assume responsibility for the social services he would need in Canada.


0 Comments

The uphill battle for queer HIV+ refugee claimants

6/6/2012

2 Comments

 
A refugee claimant from Malaysia disclosed first his HIV status, and only later acknowledged he was gay.  The Senior Immigration Officer (SIO) concluded that Ng was not protected as a refugee because he could get HIV medicine for free without charge; and though there was stigma against gay and HIV+ people in Malaysia, that same was true in Canada.
On judicial review (a kind of appeal) of that decision, the court said that the SIO was wrong because the particular kind of medicine that Mr. Ng required was not available for free; and because it was improper to compare the homophobia in Malaysia to that in Canada as the SIO had done.  The case was sent back to be heard by a different SIO.    Ng v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2012] F.C.J. No. 598, the Federal Court of Appeal 
2 Comments

    RSS Feed

    Subscribe to our blog

    Archives

    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    February 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    March 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012

    Categories

    All
    Aboriginal
    Access
    Accountability
    Adoption
    Aids
    Alberta
    Amnesty International
    Apology
    Appeal
    Assisted Human Reproduction Technology
    Bathrooms
    Birth Certificate
    Bisexual
    Board Of Education
    Breast Cancer
    British Columbia
    Broadcast
    Bullying
    Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
    Catholic
    Charter Of Rights
    Charter Of Values
    Child Protection
    Children
    Child Support
    Child Welfare
    Christian
    Citizenship
    Civil Rights
    Civil Union
    Coca Cola
    Colonialism
    Comedy
    Common Law
    Confidentiality
    Courts
    Criminal Law
    Custody
    Depilation
    Disability
    Discrimination
    Divorce
    Donor Insemination
    Education
    Egg Donor
    Egypt
    Employment
    Equality Rights
    Ethnic Origin
    Family Law
    Family Law Act
    Family Relations Act
    Federal Court
    Feminist
    First Nations
    Freedom Of Conscience
    Freedom Of Expression
    Freedom Of Religion
    Freedom Of Speech
    Gay
    Gay Straight Alliance
    Gender Expression
    Gender Identity
    Gender Marker
    Genderqueer
    Genetic
    Genetic Testing
    Greyson
    Harassment
    Harper
    Hate Speech
    Health
    Hiv
    Holocaust
    Homophobia
    Homosexual
    Homosexuality
    House Of Commons
    Human Rights
    Idaho
    Immigration
    International
    Intersex
    Jail
    Jewish
    John Baird
    Judge
    Kansas
    Kenya
    Kris Wells
    Kuwait
    Law
    Law Society Of Bc
    Law Society Of Ontario
    Leaflet
    Lesbian
    Loubani
    Malaysia
    Marriage
    Mary Bryson
    Medical Plan
    Minority
    Music
    Muslim
    Nepal
    Obama
    Ontario
    Pansexual
    Parenting
    Passport
    Power Of Attorney
    Prejudice
    Pride
    Prison
    Property
    Publication
    Public Opinion
    Quebec
    Queer
    Race
    Racism
    Rae Spoon
    Refugee
    Registered Domestic Partnership
    Religion
    Representation Agreement
    Reproductive Technology
    Research
    Retirement Home
    Russia
    Same Sex
    Same Sex Marriage
    Saskatchewan
    School
    Schools
    Seniors
    Sexism
    Sex Reassignment Surgery
    Sexual Assault
    Sexual Orientation
    Sharia Law
    Sikhism
    Slander
    Social Assistance
    South Carolina
    South Dakota
    Speaking Out
    Special General Meeting
    Sperm Donor
    Spousal Sponsorship
    Spousal Support
    Sun Dance
    Supreme Court Of Canada
    Surrogacy
    Surrogate Mother
    Tarek Loubani
    Tenancy
    Tennessee
    Three Parents
    Trans Alliance Society
    Transgender
    Transition
    Transsexual
    Trinity Western University
    Tweet
    TWU
    Uganda
    United States
    Viet Nam
    Visa
    Voice Therapy
    Washroom
    Wills

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
Photos used under Creative Commons from phalinn, quinn.anya, tedeytan, ToGa Wanderings, Jason Spaceman, Tim Reckmann | a59.de, Enokson, Abulic Monkey, Nina Matthews Photography, _DarkGuru_, Gribiche, whiteafrican, Sweet One, jk+too, Stephane Gaudry, DonkeyHotey, Moon Wolfe