翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ R v Huhne ・ R v Hundal ・ R v Hutt ・ R v Hydro-Québec ・ R v Incedal ・ R v Instan ・ R v JA ・ R v Jim ・ R v Jobidon ・ R v Jones ・ R v Jordan ・ R v Jorgensen ・ R v Journeymen-Taylors of Cambridge ・ R v K ・ R v Kang-Brown ・ R v Kapp ・ R v Keegstra ・ R v Kewelram ・ R v Khan ・ R v Khan (South Africa) ・ R v Khelawon ・ R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia ・ R v Korsten ・ R v Kouri ・ R v Krymowski ・ R v Laba ・ R v Labaye ・ R v Ladouceur ・ R v Latimer ・ R v Latimer (1997) Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク R v Kapp ： ウィキペディア英語版 R v Kapp ''R v Kapp'' is a 2008 Supreme Court of Canada case dealing with an appeal from a British Columbia Court of Appeal decision that held that a communal fishing license granted exclusively to Aboriginals did not violate section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the basis that the distinction based on an enumerated or analogous ground in a government program will not constitute discrimination under s. 15 if, under s. 15(2): (1) the program has an ameliorative or remedial purpose; and (2) the program targets a disadvantaged group identified by the enumerated or analogous grounds. In other words the court found that the prima facie discrimination was allowed because it was aimed at improving the situation of a disadvantaged group as allowed by s. 15(2) of the Charter. This decision recognizes difficulty found with ''Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)'' in trying to employ “human dignity” as a legal test. No doubt that human dignity is an essential value underlying s.15, but it is an abstract and subjective notion that, even with the guidance of the 4 factors outlined in Law, are confusing to apply and have proven to be an additional burden on equality claimants. This case interprets ''Law'' so that it does not impose a new and distinctive test for discrimination, but rather affirms the approach to substantive equality set out in ''Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia'' and developed in the following decisions. The central purpose of combatting discrimination underlies both ss.15(1) and 15(2). Section 15(1) focuses on preventing governments from making distinctions based on the enumerated or analogous grounds that have the effect of perpetuating group disadvantage and prejudice, or impose disadvantage on the basis of stereotyping. Section 15(2) focuses on enabling governments to proactively combat existing discrimination through affirmative measures. == References == * (Full text of R. v. Kapp ) SCC (CanLII) 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「R v Kapp」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.