Stella Bliss Case Summary

1616 Words7 Pages
1. Summary of facts and decision. In this case the appellant Stella Bliss is arguing on behalf of sex discrimination (Bliss 183) on the premise that she had been excluded to receive benefits “during the period of pregnancy and childbirth” (Bliss 183). The case questions the Unemployment Insurance Act (UI Act) sections 46 and 30 in relation to the Canadian Bill of Rights s. 1 (b). Stella Bliss was employed prior to childbirth, but was faced with “interruption of employment” four days before giving birth (Bliss 183). This meant that she experienced “unemployment cause by pregnancy” (Bliss 184). Six days following her pregnancy she appealed for unemployment benefits but her claim was rejected by the Commission and the Board of Referees, (Bliss 184) as she did not meet the requirements of s. 30 (1) excluding her from being entitled to the…show more content…
From the example of Regina v. Drybones, Ritchie justifies his reasoning for the Stella Bliss case that “the one case involves the position of a penalty on a racial group to which other citizens are not subjected: the other involves a definition of the qualifications required for entitlement to benefits” (Bliss 192) which does not involve the denial of equality. In his opinion “section 46 provides additional benefits which entitle the claimant to such benefits and defining a period during which no benefits are able” (Bliss 191), therefore it is not a penalty for a group but additional definition for entitlement. In agreement with Mr. Justice Pratte again the court believes that “s. 46 did not have the effect of depriving the appellant of her right to “equality before law”” (Bliss 192). In reference to the Burnshine case Ritchie quotes Mr. Justice Maryland and it seen to be applicable for this case. “S. 1 (b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights does not require that all federal statues must apply to all individuals at the same manner” (Bliss

    More about Stella Bliss Case Summary

      Open Document