Self-Represented Litigant André Givogue Moves Forward with Legal Experts to Bring Landmark Genetic Rights Case to Supreme Court of Canada
For Immediate Release
Contact: André Givogue
https://x.com/AndreFightsBack
@AndreFightsBack
Aiming to Address Crucial Sections of Canadian Human Rights Act, Givogue Seeks to Close Legislative Gaps
Ottawa, ON – André Givogue, a determined self-represented litigant known for his relentless pursuit of justice, has taken a significant step forward in his fight against genetic discrimination by announcing his intention to bring his case to the Supreme Court of Canada. This pivotal case seeks to clarify critical sections of the Canadian Human Rights Act, particularly focusing on the interpretation of genetic characteristics and their implications for genetic privacy and discrimination.
Givogue’s journey through the legal system, including a significant win at the Social Security Tribunal and a partial victory at the Federal Court of Appeal, highlights the challenges faced by individuals navigating complex legal terrain without formal representation. Recognizing the strict deadlines and complexities of Supreme Court proceedings, Givogue has taken a strategic step by moving forward with the support of legal experts to ensure a comprehensive and precise presentation of his case. His efforts emphasize the need for judicial clarity on sections 9 and 10 of the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, highlighting the broader implications of protecting genetic rights and privacy for all Canadians in an era of advancing science and technology.
"I'm determined to ensure that genetic characteristics are protected as fundamental human rights," says Givogue. "This case isn't just about me—it's about safeguarding every Canadian's genetic privacy and dignity in the face of increasing technological scrutiny and ensuring that our legal framework keeps pace with modern science and technology. The implications of this case could influence policies and protections for generations to come. We must ensure that the law evolves to meet the challenges of our time."
The case centers on whether "genetic characteristics" under the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) should be interpreted broadly to include PCR tests and genetic material introduced by mRNA and viral vector vaccines, rather than being limited to traditional narrow health-based genetic tests. This broader interpretation would align with the evolving use of genetic material in medical and employment contexts, ensuring that genetic privacy is safeguarded and discriminatory practices are prevented. By seeking a Supreme Court ruling, Givogue aims to close significant legislative gaps, establish stronger protections for all Canadians, and amplify a national conversation about the importance of genetic rights in the face of advancing technology.
To learn more about this important legal challenge and how it impacts all Canadians, visit AndreFightsBack.com. To support this effort, donations to assist with legal expenses can be made via GiveSendGo. Every contribution helps ensure that genetic rights and privacy are protected for generations to come.
FAQs
1. What is this case about?
This case challenges whether the term 'genetic characteristics' under the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) should be interpreted broadly to reflect modern scientific practices. It examines whether protections extend beyond traditional narrow health-based genetic tests to include PCR tests, for example, and whether they also cover the collection of genetic information or data directly or indirectly obtained through other means, such as mRNA vaccine disclosure via attestations, for example. By addressing these issues, the case seeks to clarify the scope of genetic privacy protections and ensure that advancements in science do not undermine fundamental human rights.
2. Why is this case important?
This case is important because it seeks to clarify how "genetic characteristics" are defined and protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act. By addressing these issues, it aims to ensure that advancements in science and technology do not erode genetic privacy or lead to discrimination. The outcome could set a precedent that strengthens human rights protections for all Canadians in an era of rapidly evolving medical and technological practices.
3. What are the broader implications of this case?
The broader implications of this case extend beyond individual rights, potentially reshaping how genetic privacy and discrimination are addressed under Canadian law. A decision in this case could establish a precedent for interpreting "genetic characteristics" in the Canadian Human Rights Act, ensuring robust protections in the face of advancing technology and medical practices. It could influence policies on genetic data collection, storage, and use, safeguarding fundamental human rights for all Canadians while setting a standard for balancing innovation with privacy and equality.
4. Where can I get updates on the case and on André’s legal battles?
Visit AndreFightsBack.com for the latest updates and how you can support the cause.
5. How does the CHRA protect genetic characteristics, and is it limited to genetic tests?
This question has not yet been directly adjudicated. However, the obiter dicta in the Reference re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act decision indirectly addresses the scope of protections for genetic characteristics under the CHRA. Paragraph 191 suggests that these protections extend beyond traditional genetic tests and to include a broader range of genetic information obtained through other means, offering valuable insight into the potential interpretation of the law.
“[191] The amendments to the CHRA also encompass a broader range of genetic information than ss. 1 to 7. First, since no definition is provided for “genetic characteristics”, the protection is not limited to a narrow health-based definition of genetic tests. Second, by protecting “genetic characteristics” rather than information disclosed by genetic tests, the amendments to the CHRA include genetic information obtained through other means. The deeming provision supports this interpretation: the CHRA specifically ensures that one cannot be forced to undergo a genetic test and that results of a genetic test cannot be forcibly disclosed, which does not preclude the fact that a broader range of genetic information is protected. The broad purview of the CHRA goes to show, in my respectful view, that ss. 1 to 7 also cannot be characterized in pith and substance as protecting individuals’ control over private information.”
Sources
Case Information and Updates
AndreFightsBack.comSupport the Cause
GiveSendGo - Andre Fights BackFederal Court of Appeal Decision
Givogue v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FCA 186 (CanLII)
Read the DecisionRelated Article: "CHRC misinterpreted worker's COVID-19 discrimination claim, so worker can proceed with appeal: FCA"
Read on Canadian Lawyer
Social Security Tribunal Ruling
AG v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission, 2023 SST 2101 (CanLII)
Read the RulingRelated Article: "Federal employee placed on unpaid leave for not disclosing COVID-19 vaccine status wins appeal for EI benefits"
Read on The Canadian Independent
5. Canada Labour Code
Read on CanLII
Relevant Sections: 134.1(6), 135(9)
6. Canadian Human Rights Act
Read on CanLII
Relevant Sections: 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 53(3), 53(4)
7. Genetic Non-Discrimination Act
Read on CanLII
Relevant Sections: 9, 10
8. Reference re Genetic Non‑Discrimination Act, 2020 SCC 17 (CanLII), [2020] 2 SCR 283
Read on CanLII
Key Paragraphs: 1, 2, 4, 10, 12, 15, 46, 68, 123, 125, 156, 185, 186, 188, 191, 193, 252
-30-