See also my earlier post: Tax Treaty in conflict with Canada’s Human Rights Act
Another angle that we must consider is the Canadian Human Rights Act, which upholds ChearsBigEars view that we may sue the banks for the intention to violate Charter rights. This is on the basis of the following (section 12):
12. It is a discriminatory practice to publish or display before the public or to cause to be published or displayed before the public any notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that
- (a) expresses or implies discrimination or an intention to discriminate, or
- (b) incites or is calculated to incite others to discriminate
if the discrimination expressed or implied, intended to be expressed or implied or incited or calculated to be incited would otherwise, if engaged in, be a discriminatory practice described in any of sections 5 to 11 or in section 14.
Obviously, the advertisement of a position whose sole purpose is to discriminate against certain of the bank’s clients on the basis of their national origin is a clear violation of section 12 of the Human Rights Act. There is a hermeneutical principle, that one text interprets another, allowing opportunity to understand the context in which laws exist. Obviously, the people who wrote the Charter of Rights and the Human Rights Act wanted to eliminate the possibility of discrimination based on the basis of national origin. Thus, the banks’ job advertisements seeking FATCA administrators is a discriminatory practice and thus the Federal government must not allow the banks to do this under the Charter of Rights. We have case for a Charter challenge. We wish to have equal protection and equal opportunity. We also have the basis of a human rights complaint against TD Bank et al.