end the blood ban
It was at this point where the attorney general intervened, requesting a judicial review of the referral, in order to quash the CHRC’s decision. This step was highly unusual. According to guidelines set by the Supreme Court, referrals from the CHRC to the CHRT should only be sent for judicial review in truly exceptional circumstances where there appears to be no reasonable basis for a referral.
The attorney general argued that Health Canada bears no responsibility for any discrimination that might exist in the blood donation system, and laid all the blame on Canadian Blood Services , a quasi-independent agency that is regulated by Health Canada. Contradicting the attorney general’s characterization of the CHRC as unreasonable, Southcott found the commission’s analysis “intelligible” and supported by “a reasonable basis on the law and evidence.” Southcott also rejected the attorney general’s comparison of Karas’ case to a 2017 case, Soullière vs. Health Canada, in which another human rights complaint against the department was dismissed.
Though the attorney general’s case was dismissed, it remains unclear whether Karas will be financially compensated for this frivolous judicial review. Karas is seeking compensation for his legal fees and, morally speaking, the attorney general should provide it.Article content
Source: Law Daily Report (lawdailyreport.net)
Not true HIV can still be contracted in a blood transfusion as well as other viruses