
Human Rights judgments from Canadian courts and tribunals, with a plain-English summary, the legal holding and frequently asked questions.
The Federal Court denied Canada's request to dismiss a lawsuit challenging its climate change laws. The court found that the lawsuit's claims about constitutional rights violations are valid and should proceed.
A former member of the a person challenged a staffing policy that excluded them from certain positions based on their rank. The Federal Court found that the decision to exclude them was reasonable and followed proper procedures, dismissing their application for judicial review.
The Federal Court granted an interlocutory injunction to transfer a transgender woman to a more suitable correctional institution pending the completion of her intake assessment. The court found that the decision was unreasonable and the applicant faced irreparable harm.
A self-represented litigant challenged the denial of military maternity and parental allowance, arguing that she should be eligible to apply retroactively due to uncertainty at the time of her leave. However, the court found that the administrative decision was procedurally fair and reasonably interpreted the eligibility requirements.
In 2026, the Federal Court dismissed a challenge to Vaccine Mandates, ruling that the claimant's Charter rights were not violated by the mandates. The court determined that the Vaccine Mandates did not constitute 'treatment' under section 12 of the Charter.
A person filed an application against a company under Canada's Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) claiming that their personal data was mishandled. However, due to lack of clear evidence showing a breach, the Federal Court dismissed the claimant's case.
In a recent Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling, a motion to amend a complaint to include 'family status' as a ground of discrimination was dismissed. The Canadian Human Rights Commission had previously decided not to consider 'family status' as a ground for the alleged discrimination, and the Tribunal found it could not review this decision.
In a recent Federal Court case, the judge rejected the use of Rule 74 to remove a document from the Court file. Instead, the judge directed the parties to address common procedural objections through motions to strike or preliminary objections.