Yes and no, inasmuch as government and institutional laws and actions, which the Charter and the rest of the Constitution Act of 1982 govern, affect what citizens can and cannot do or have the freedom or not to enjoy. The Charter clearly and explicitly applies to individuals when it uses, repeatedly, the phrases “Every citizen of Canada has the right to …” and “Everyone has the right to …,” and when it includes, for instance, the right to vote, and freedom of religion, and the right to move to, take up residence in, and work in any province, and the right to be informed promptly of the reason for arrest. Clearly these are rights that extend to people, not governments, though the directive is that governments at all levels ensure those rights are guaranteed and applied equally.
This is not my understanding. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms dictates that government must not discriminate on the grounds of, among other things, physical disability. But there is no one definition of disability. See Diabetes Canada’s explanation: “There is no standard definition of ‘disability’ in Canada; each federal, provincial/territorial government program and private insurer may interpret ‘disability’ differently and set their own rules for eligibility. For most programs, eligibility is based not on which disease or disability you have, but on how the disease/disability affects your ability to work, participate in society, etc.”
Some disabilities few people or institutions would quibble with: people who are legally blind, or who must use a wheelchair, for example. Other conditions require adjudication. People with diabetes, for instance, are not ipso facto eligible for the Disability Tax Credit (although various advocacy groups are pushing for that); they have to apply, and meet specific eligibility criteria, with restrictions and definitions outlined by Canada Revenue Agency, and according to Diabetes Canada, “most people with diabetes do not quality to receive [the credit].”
Although the Charter rights may specify that people have them, people have those rights against the government. The rights themselves only bind government action, so, to return to the original point, when the federal Immigration Act is applied to anyone, the Act is subject to the Charter, no matter what type of person is being affected by the Act. The people negatively impacted through state action through the Act can then receive a remedy under the Charter’s s. 24, or the Act itself can be struck down under s. 52.
That said, the Supreme Court has held (in Dolphin Delivery, for example) that common law principles should be developed according to Charter values, so insofar as the common law can operate to affect the private rights of individuals, the Charter would have an indirect impact on them. But the Charter essentially limits what the government can do to people.
The lower courts which have considered diabetics applying for admission to Canada as immigrants have treated diabetes as a disability falling under the equality right in s. 15 (1), so jurisprudence has already recognized diabetes as falling under ‘disability.’ The woman who applied for immigration and was turned down because her established disposition to a recurrence of breast cancer was also recognized as having a disability when the issue was dealt with by lower courts, so it would seem that any disease can count as a disability. The federal and provincial Human Rights Acts, which have quasi-constitutional status, would also protect diabetics from discrimination, although they make exemptions for insurance company policies. I also, by the way, get a break on my taxes for my ‘disabled’ status as a type 1 diabetic. My general practitioner said I spent enough hours per week dealing with my condition to qualify.
As a federal employee, diabetes is a federally recognized disability, and employees can request Reasonable Accommodation under the 2008 American Disabilities Act that was amended in 2008 to include diabetes as a disability that effects major bodily functions etc… That said, many are discriminated against when they request reasonable accommodations. Sometime accommodations are granted and each agency has a missionary designee that handles review of requests for accommodation. Some agencies are more proactive and each agency handles things a bit differently. I won’t go into all my past experiences with several agencies but it has been used against me in several positions.
This is a broad principle that is too little understood by people in general. I’ll use the United States constitution as an example since it’s the one I live under. The first amendment to the constitution does not, as people often presume, guarantee a right to free speech everywhere in all circumstances. It says that the government (Congress, in this case) may not pass laws abridging freedom of speech. It does not mean that you can say what you want, where and when you like. If you are a guest in my house and I object to your language, I am perfectly free to ask you to leave. I am not a government.
“diabetes is a federally recognized disability, and employees can request Reasonable Accommodation under the 2008 American Disabilities Act that was amended in 2008 to include diabetes as a disability that effects major bodily functions etc”
@Yoga62, I have a question about that. So, in the past, when filling out job paperwork, I have been asked if I have Diabetes as a ‘disability.’ I was surprised because I hadn’t seen that before. Is it beneficial to an employer in any way to show that they are hiring disabled people. Does it benefit them if I check that box? I wondered, at the time, what they would prefer. I didn’t check the box. I was refusing their health coverage, so it didn’t seem applicable. What are the implications of checking that box VS. not checking that box?
Same in Ontario Canada… You absolutely could not ask that question or any other medical question at an interview - clearly against the law. Of course, if you applied to be a truck driver and you were visually impaired, that’s a little different, but the Act requires that these types of things must be an actual requirement to perform the job (Accessability for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). To be separated from a spouse simply for medical reasons is ridiculous and I would absolutely seek professional advice on this. If nothing else, there must be some kind of exemption from OHIP (Ontarios Health System) in these types of cases, i.e., I’m sick and I’ll pay for it myself instead of using OHIP. I’m absolutely not saying this didn’t happen, but wow.
Personally, I have never been discriminated upon because of diabetes openly nor found out that I have otherwise been. I’m open about it if asked but don’t volunteer any information beyond that - it’s really nobody’s business but that’s just me.
The rules were changed to allow ‘medically unfit’ applications for admission to Canada such as immediate families to constitute an ‘exemption’ to the general rejection of such people in 2003, which was when I was able to enter. Aside from these exceptions, however, Canada turns away anyone and everyone who is deemed because of a health problem to impose too heavy a burden on the public healthcare system. Surprizing for a country that is made of political correctness and snow. The actual text of the relevant section of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, 2001, as amended up to 2017-06-22, follows:
My employer, the State of Oregon, is adamant that the only possible way for me to install and use the Dexcom Clarity software on my work machine is to invoke the ADA. While I hope that means I’ll have a projected status, I suspect there will be less positive results.
I have been refused income protection insurance outright due to my diabetes, not even a chance to fight my corner. I have had 3 sick days in 2 years due to a stomach bug, nothing diabetes related!
They have upped my premium for my other mortgage protection insurance on the basis that I might die early!!!
I called Diabetes UK and they just said “yeah some people do find that happens…”!
Well, after all, this is the same state government that paid someone to develop an Obamacare-based system that they eventually abandoned and discarded . . . a quarter of a billion dollars later.
I was fired once, mostly because I was diabetic, and as it was a small company of 10 employees, the insurer was giving them a hard time about giving an employee drug plan to the company because I would be very expensive for them. Wasn’t much later I found my performance was below company standards. They got their drug plan, I got a pink slip, and went on to spend 22 years with my next employer.
I feel your pain. I have never been able to purchase private life insurance or mortgage insurance, ever. I was refused term insurance while at University, only 5 months after my diagnosis, in 1967. First time I was involved in getting a mortgage, I was refused mortgage insurance, and about the same time a life insurer sent a nurse to measure me. She commented on how nice it was to examine someone in good shape, but two weeks later I got a letter informing me that I was ineligible due to my diabetes. I had the good fortune to work for the government, which made me automatically qualify for life insurance and a drug plan, which I was able to continue after retirement. If you can get hired by a very big employer, such as government or large scale manufacturing, that may be possible for you, too.
I’ve been interviewing for jobs the past few months and it’s not always easy to avoid revealing that I have diabetes. Normally I put my dexcom on my arm, but it leaves a bump that people ask about, even if it’s not visible. So I have started wearing it in really hard to see/reach places (which isn’t fun when it comes time to retape!)
One interview last week was 6 hours long with a lunch interview and no breaks or any chance to bolus in private. If I had used my pump, everyone would have seen. I just ate artistically and let myself go high instead of bolusing.
I’d rather deal with that than give them any easy reason to not hire me.
When I was an undergraduate, I applied for a life insurance policy, and with a foolishness typical of the time, the company decided that whether they would sell me a policy or not would all depend on a single urine sugar test that would be done at their office – as though that would give any information at all. I just gave up in disgust.
I have had the very same experience, 400 % loading on life cover and outright refusal to even quote me on income protection and never missed work due to diabetes.
It really depends on what the job entails, who is the employer, there is not a one answer fits all. private sector rules are entirely different than city/state/county/federal and different laws apply. in my experience it has been best for me to not share my medical information and when i did share, in some instances, it did not work in my favor. asking for reasonable accommodations can backfire, it all depends on the variables of employer and duties imo…
There was an incident in my area. I’m sure it happens a lot. A man with type 1 diabetes pulled forward after receiving food from a fast food restaurant and was spotted injecting insulin. The person who witnessed it called the police fearing he was injecting heroin. The police pulled him over and the man told them that he needed to dose before eating. The police ended up letting him go but followed him home. Some people commented praises to the police officer for following the man home because if he just injected insulin…he might have some complications that impair his driving. Some commented blaming heroin addicts and saying that is just how it has to be now. Some people were saying that diabetics need to inject in privacy if they don’t want the attention. Some were really offended by public injection. We inject my son where ever we are. I think if we were ever approached by a police officer, I might use that situation as a chance to educate.
