Pertinent articles of the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights allegedly violated by Canada:

 Article 26, Article 2.1, Article 2.2, Article 2.3, Article 50.                 

Article 26:

All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Article 2.1:

Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Article 2.2:

Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.

Article 2.3:

Each state Party to the present Covenant undertakes:

[a]       To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;

[b]       To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto, determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;

[c]       To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.

Article 50:

The provisions of the present Covenant shall extend to all parts of federal States without any limitations or exceptions.

The Covenant was used as a model for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  Compare the wording of Article 26 of the Covenant, above, with that of Section 15(1) of the Charter, which  reads:

“Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

First Victim, discrimination in promotion

Grant  Tadman

   Grant Tadman graduated from the University of Toronto with a Bachelor of Physical and Health education in 1972 and thereafter attended at the Faculty of Education, graduating with a Bachelor of Education degree in 1974.

   Mr. Tadman describes himself as a member of the United Church of Canada.

   From 1975 to 1986, Mr. Tadman taught at various high schools for the North York Board of Education.

   In 1986, as a direct consequence of the application of Bill 30, Mr. Tadman agreed to transfer to the Metropolitan (Roman Catholic) Separate School Board (MSSB) as a “designated” teacher under the provisions of s.135 of the Education Act.  He co-operated in solving a surplus teacher problem and had no concern about teaching in a Roman Catholic school. 

   Mr. Tadman reported for work in September and, despite the provisions of his transfer, which were to ensure that he had an essentially similar position to the one he left  in the Public Board, he was never placed in a permanent teaching position.  Instead, he was  assigned to work in a supernumerary teaching assistant position, as an in-school supply teacher, attendance secretary, receptionist, and file clerk.

   Nevertheless, Mr. Tadman applied himself conscientiously to any assignment given to him and attempted to perform his duties in accordance with the Board’s own standards and requirements such that he never received any performance appraisals which in any way suggested incompetence or unsatisfactory teaching skills.

   Although permanent teaching positions became available from time to time, the MSSB did not assign him to any position, despite its legal obligation to do so.  Mr. Tadman made a number of requests for a permanent teaching post, but he was turned down for reasons he considered unjustified.

   Furthermore, while working for the Separate Board, Mr. Tadman was placed in a position which provoked religious intolerance and verbal harassment by staff and students because he did not share their adherence to the Roman Catholic faith.  The Board did not take any positive steps to eliminate the circumstances which gave rise to the conflict.

   These stress-inducing conditions made it necessary for Mr. Tadman to take medical leaves for periods between 1987 and 1989, and between 1992 and 1994.

   In April 1992 Mr. Tadman pursued his rights under the Ontario Education Act as entrenched in the guarantees promised by Bill 30 and filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.  The response in 1992 was that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to deal with the matter, and dismissed it. 

    In October 1992 the Office of the Ombudsman advised that it would not be investigating the complaint  because it “concurs with the position taken by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.”

   Grievances filed with the Roman Catholic Board produced unsatisfactory resolutions to Mr. Tadman’s concerns.

   In addition, Mr. Tadman made submissions to the Ontario courts pursuant to the provisions of the Ontario Education Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  Again, an unsatisfactory conclusion was produced.

   Notwithstanding the statutory guarantees enacted under the Ontario Education Act (Bill 30) in 1986, the experience of Mr. Tadman reflects the discriminatory application of these laws and the failure of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Ontario Ombudsman, and the Ontario court system to protect his rights as originally embodied under s.135 and s.136 of the Education Act.