Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group S

Granovsky v Canada (Minister of Employment) 2000 SCC 28 [2000] 1 SCR 703



Headnote from the case:

"The appellant claimed to have suffered an intermittent and degenerative back injury following a work-related accident in 1980. He was assessed to be temporarily totally disabled at that time.  Prior to his accident, he had made Canada Pension Plan (CPP) contributions in six of the ten previous years.  The appellant was profitably employed from time to time following his accident but maintained that his back condition continued to deteriorate and that the disability became permanent in 1993, at which time he applied for a CPP disability pension.  His application was refused by the Minister of Employment and Immigration and refused again by a review tribunal in part because he had only made a CPP contribution in one year of the relevant CPP 10-year contribution period prior to the date of application and thus had what was considered to be an insufficiently recent connection to the work force. He could not bring himself within the “drop-out” provision (made available to applicants who suffered from severe and permanent disabilities) under which periods of disability are not counted in the recency of contribution calculation. Among the issues raised by the appellant was whether the CPP infringed s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because the contributions requirement fails to take into account the fact that persons with temporary disabilities may not be able to make contributions for the minimum qualifying period in s. 44(1) because they are physically unable to work. The appellant was unsuccessful both before the Pension Appeals Board and before the Federal Court of Appeal."

Our Objective
Our group will endeavor to analyse Granovsky's case using 7 different legal philosophies. By using these differing philosophies we can see not only how the theories of law have changed over time, but also how theorists in different eras would have approached the case themselves. Our ultimate goal is to gain a fuller understanding of any and all of the legal theories underpinning this case, but to further understand the theories that influences a judges decision making, as well as the law as a whole.

Please click on the links below to access the respective theoretical approach
{| class="infobox bordered" cellpadding="4" style="text-align: center; font-size: 90%;" ! colspan="5" style="font-size: 110%; background:#d3d3d3;" | Cole Rodocker, Tajinder Rathoor, Nick Rogic, Toby Davis ! colspan="2" style="background:#ddd;" | Legal Perspectives ! colspan="3" style="background:#ddd;" | Legal Philosophers ! 1 ! ! 2 ! ! 3 ! ! 4 ! ! 5 ! ! 6 ! ! 7 ! colspan="6" style="background:#ddd;" | [Professor Margaret Hall]
 * Natural Law
 * Thomas Aquinas
 * Legal Positivism
 * [John Austin, HLA Hart, Jeremy Bentham, Joseph Raz]
 * Separation Theory
 * [HLA Hart & Lon Fuller]
 * System of Rights
 * [Ronald Dworkin]
 * Liberty and Paternalism
 * [John Stewart Mill & Gerald Dworkin]
 * Law as Efficiency
 * [Susan Dimock]
 * Feminist Jurisprudence
 * Patricia Smith & Catharine A. Mackinnon