A v. Union of India (High Court 2000) (unreported)

2000
A was diagnosed with HIV in 1997 while serving in the Indian Navy, where he continued working until he earned his full pension and benefits. After that period, A sought to be re-engaged by the Navy for an additional 3 year period. The Indian Navy refused to re-engage A solely due to his HIV status. A challenged this refusal in the High Court arguing that it violated his right to equal protection, life, and liberty.
Read further » tbl_s5105SACaseDockets_FileUpload5891_66_A v Union of India.pdf

Analysis of the Judgement in Felix Paul v The Attorney General ( Malawian High Court Misc Civil Cause No. 37 of 2011)

2011
This is an egregious judgement that is beset by a number of errors of law and fact. The judgement is grossly unfair and fails on various levels.
Read further »

Attorney General v Aphane

2010
Attorney General v Doo Aphane
Read further » Judgement-Appeal-Doo.pdf

Bragdon v. Abbott (Supreme Court 1998)

1998
Bragdon, a dentist, refused to fill cavities for Abbott, who was HIV positive. The District Court ruled in Abbott’s favour finding that being HIV positive fell within the definition of disability under the ADA, and that no issue of material fact was raised by Bragdon as to whether HIV would have posed a direct threat to the health or safety of others. Bragdon appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the District Court ruling. Bragdon then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Read further »

Canada v Thwaites (Trial Division 1994)

1994
Thwaites, a master seaman in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), was dismissed from his job. He filed suit against CAF alleging that his right to be free from discrimination was violated as his dismissal was due to his HIV status. The Human Rights Tribunal held that CAF had discriminated against Thwaites due to his HIV status in violation of his rights. CAF appealed the Tribunal’s decision on the grounds that the Tribunal erred in assessing the risks Thwaites posed to others and to himself.
Read further »

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v Canada (Court of Appeal 1990)

1990
Fontaine was contracted by his employer to Canadian Pacific (CP) to work as a cook. He was constructively dismissed from employment after his HIV status was discovered by CP. Fontaine appealed his dismissal to the Human Rights Tribunal, claiming a violation of his right to be free from discrimination under the Charter. The Tribunal concluded that CP had violated Fontaine’s right to be free from discrimination for dismissing Fontaine on the basis of his HIV status. CP appealed this decision.
Read further » Canadian Pacific Limited v CHRC and Fontaine.pdf

Diau v Botswana Building Society (Industrial Court 2003)

2003
Diau’s employment at the Botswana Building Society (BBS) was conditional upon a six-month probationary period and a full medical examination. Part of the medical examination included an HIV test, which Diau refused to take. She was dismissed. Diau filed a claim against the BBS alleging violations of her right to privacy, be free from unfair discrimination, liberty, and be free from inhuman and degrading treatment.
Read further » tbl_s5105SACaseDockets_FileUpload5891_62_Diau-typed.pdf

Eldridge v British Columbia (Supreme Court 1997)

1997
Three deaf individuals sued the Attorney General of British Columbia and the Medical Services Commission arguing that they received inferior medical care due to the lack of sign language translators available at medical care facilities.
Read further »

Fontaine v Canadian Pacific Ltd (Human Rights Tribunal 1989)

1989
Fontaine was contracted by his employer to Canadian Pacific (CP) to work as a cook. He left employment after his HIV status was discovered by CP and he was subjected to stigma and discrimination by his CP employees. Fontaine appealed his treatment to the Human Rights Tribunal, claiming a violation of his right to be free from discrimination under the Human Rights Act. At issue was whether CP was Fontaine’s employer for purposes of the Human Rights Act and whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction over the matter.
Read further »

Haindongo Nghidipohamba Nanditume v Minister of Defence (Labour Court 2000)

2000
Nanditume sued the National Defence Force (NDF) in the Labour Court for denying him employment due solely to his HIV status. The NDF had a blanket pre-employment testing policy and refused to hire anyone who tested positive for HIV regardless of the individual’s physical fitness. Employees of NDF were not tested for HIV nor dismissed if HIV positive.
Read further »

Hoffman v. South African Airways (Constitutional Court 2000)

2000
In 1996, South African Airway’s (SAA) employment policy dictated that Hoffman be denied employment as a cabin attendant due to his HIV status, despite him being found to be otherwise medically fit. Hoffman challenged his treatment alleging it constituted unfair discrimination in violation of his right to equality, human dignity and fair labour practices. The High Court held that SAA did not violate Hoffman’s rights. Hoffman appealed to the Constitutional Court.
Read further »

International Criminal Justice: Corporate war crimes

2010
Commercially motivated pillage has taken on increasing importance in recent years as the illegal exploitation of natural resources has emerged as a primary means of financing conflict. SALC attended a conference organised by the Open Society Justice Initiative in The Hague on the crime pillage and its application to the illegal exploitation of natural resources by corporations and their officers.
Read further »

Monare v Botswana Ash (Pty) Ltd (Industrial Court 2004)

2004
Monare, who was HIV positive, worked for Botswana Ash for seven years as a personnel officer in charge of industrial relations. As his medical condition deteriorated, his employment was terminated. Monare sued Botswana Ash alleging his dismissal was unfair since it was based on his HIV status.
Read further » tbl_s5105SACaseDockets_FileUpload5891_60_Monare-typed.pdf

MX v ZY (High Court 1997)

1997
After being short-listed, MX, a casual labourer, was removed from consideration for full-time employment at a public company and from his temporary position with the same company due to his HIV status. He had been found fit for duty by a medical practitioner.MX filed suit in the High Court claiming that the company had violated his rights to earn a living and to equal protection.
Read further »

Perreira v Buccleuch Montessori Pre-School and Primary (Pty) (High Court 2003)

2003
Perreira instituted action on behalf of her daughter who was living with HIV, alleging that her daughter had been discriminated against by Buccleuch Montessori school after they refused to enrol her. At dispute was whether the application for admission was solely rejected due to the child’s HIV status. The school conceded that it had recommended the application be deferred until the school was ready to admit HIV positive children and until the child was "past the biting stage".
Read further » tbl_s5105SACaseDockets_FileUpload5891_116_Perreira v Buccleuch _High Court_.pdf

Québec (Commission des droits de la personne) v. Dr. G (Human Rights Tribunal 1995)

2006
Dr. G, a dentist, refused PM a dental consultation on the basis that PM was HIV positive. PM had informed the dental hygienist of his status. PM sued Dr. G alleging that the refusal violated his right to be free from discrimination on the basis of a handicap as provided under the Charter.
Read further »

Registered Trustees of the Women and Law in Southern Africa v Attorney General

2010
Submissions of Applicant in Malawian case challenging the common law rule permitting courts take into account only monetary contribution to property in assessing an individual’s interest in property at time of divorce.
Read further » wlsa submissions 17.11.10.doc

Roy Leslie Bennett Judgment

2008
This application is brought in terms of s 24 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. Section 24 of the Constitution provides that any person who alleges that the Declaration of Rights has been, is being, or is likely to be, contravened in relation to him may apply to the Supreme Court for redress.
Read further »

SALC Amicus: Moyo v Attorney-General

2009
The Malawian Centre for Human Rights, Education, Advice and Assistance (CHREAA), appeared as amicus curiae in the matter of Evance Moyo v The Attorney-General before the Constitutional Court. The applicant and amicus challenged the provision that juveniles are to be detained at the pleasure of the president.
Read further » Evance Moyo Amicus Heads.pdf

Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organizations Trust v. Elections and Boundaries Commission

2010
Five Swazi organisations formed the Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisations Trust (SACCCO) in March 2003. In July 2008, The Trust and Trustees instituted a constitutional challenge to the eligibility requirements of appointments to the Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) before the High Court. The case also sought to determine whether a constitutional challenge could be instituted against the King of Swaziland. In their application, the Trust sought several forms of relief, including declarations that the appointments of several of the respondents were unlawful and invalid, that the EBC was unlawfully constituted, and that the EBC had no legal right or power to exclude organisations like SACCCO from providing voter education to the public.
Read further »

Thwaites v Canadian Armed Forces (Human Rights Tribunal 1993)

1993
Thwaites, a master seaman, was dismissed from employment with the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) allegedly due to his HIV status. He filed a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal against CAF, alleging discrimination under the Human Rights Act (HRA). At issue in the case was whether CAF had a legitimate reason for dismissing Thwaites based on his HIV status.
Read further »

X v Commonwealth of Australia (High Court 1999)

1999
X enlisted in the Australian Regular Army and was discharged after he tested positive for HIV during a medical examination. He was otherwise found to be in "excellent" health and capable of performing his duties as an enlistee. X filed a complaint with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, alleging that his discharge amounted to unlawful discrimination.
Read further »