Brief Explanation

Human Rights Comparative is an effort to demystify and simplify the legal realm of human rights in Canada by increasing the understanding of human rights processes and human rights protections, thereby enhancing access to justice. This website was created with the aim of enhancing access to justice by distilling human rights material into a user-friendly and accessible format.

This website has a wide variety to offer, ranging from the history of human rights in Canada, to how and where to bring forth a complaint, the most relevant legal human rights tests to prove discrimination and to justify infringement. As well as, a carefully selected database of cases and a human rights commentator, an online blog that will highlight and focus on developments in human rights law.

Leading cases in human rights law located in our decisions database include; British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3, Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61, [2012] 3 S.C.R. 360, Hydro Québec v. Syndicat des employé e s de techniques professionnelles et de bureau d’Hydro Québec, section locale 2000 (SCFP FTQ), 2008 SCC 43, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 561, and Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v. Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center), 2015 SCC 39, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 789. The most recent and prominent decision on human rights was Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corp. 2017 SCC 30 which serves as a worthwhile primer on the key tests required to prove prima facie discrimination and the test to justify discrimination.

This website was conceptualized by Dr. Miriam Cohen, Assistant Professor at Lakehead Universities Bora Laskin Faculty of Law who saw this project as an opportunity to fill a service gap. She along with her research team of law students interested in human rights partnered up with the computer science department at Lakehead University to bring this project to digital life.

Human Rights Comparative was never intended to be a substitute for qualified legal advice and does not hold itself as a substitute for such. While the human rights system is better equipped to deal with self-represented litigants than a traditional adjudicative process, there is no replacement for a qualified legal opinion. Human Rights Comparative provides content for general informational purposes and contains links to relevant and helpful third-party websites, we do not guarantee their accuracy.