Genetic Non-Discrimination Act

How it changed on the way

95% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (2,344 words introduced, 2,173 passed). A committee amended it.

transformative changeintent mostly kept

The core prohibitions on requiring genetic tests or results stayed the same, but the Canada Labour Code amendments gained extra procedural steps for complaints and section 5 added a ban on disclosure without consent. Overall 95% of the introduced text was altered or replaced before royal assent.

• Section 5 expanded to ban disclosure of results without written consent.

  Before: “collect or use the results of a genetic test of the individual without the individual's written consent.”

  After: “collect, use or disclose the results of a genetic test of the individual without the individual's written consent.”

• Labour Code complaint process added steps for unsettled cases and referral to adjudicator.

  Before: “the inspector shall, on the written request of the employee who made the complaint that the complaint be referred to an adjudicator”

  After: “the inspector shall, on the written request of the employee who made the complaint that the complaint be referred to an adjudicator under subsection (6), (a) report to the Minister that the endeavour to assist the parties to settle the complaint has not succeeded; and (b) deliver to the Minister the complaint made under subsection (1) and any other statements or documents the inspector has that relate to the complaint.”

How precisely it is written

mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate

Core prohibitions and definitions are tightly drafted with objective lists and fixed penalties. Labour Code amendments and some Human Rights Act language introduce multiple subjective tests and official discretion.

Open to argument

• “not later than 90 days after the date on which the complainant knew, or in the inspector’s opinion ought to have known, of the action”

  Relies on the inspector’s subjective opinion rather than an objective date or standard.

• “within such period as the inspector endeavouring to assist the parties pursuant to that subsection considers to be reasonable in the circumstances”

  Leaves the length of settlement efforts to the inspector’s personal assessment of reasonableness.

• “pay compensation to the employee, not exceeding the sum that, in the adjudicator’s opinion, is equivalent to any financial or other penalty”

  Compensation amount turns on the adjudicator’s opinion instead of a fixed formula.

• “appoint any person that the Minister considers appropriate as an adjudicator”

  Broad discretion granted to the Minister without statutory criteria.

Clear-cut

• “on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding $1,000,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or to both”

  Exact maximum penalties stated in numbers with no open-ended language.

• “genetic test means a test that analyzes DNA, RNA or chromosomes for purposes such as the prediction of disease or vertical transmission risks, or monitoring, diagnosis or prognosis”

  Term is defined by specific biological materials and listed purposes.

• “Sections 3 to 5 do not apply to (a) a physician, a pharmacist or any other health care practitioner in respect of an individual to whom they are providing health services”

  Exception is limited to named professions and a narrow factual context.

Discretion. Inspectors, the Minister and adjudicators retain significant latitude to decide time limits, settlement periods, compensation amounts and who hears complaints.

Challenging the law itself. Vague phrases such as 'in the inspector’s opinion' and 'considers to be reasonable' could support a vagueness or overbreadth challenge under s. 7 of the Charter.

Disputing a charge under it. Core prohibitions are clear, but accused parties could readily dispute whether an inspector or adjudicator properly applied subjective standards such as 'ought to have known' or 'reasonable'.

Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.