There has been great debate about whether Australia should align
with other countries which currently have a Bill of Rights.
However, this Canadian case shows how a Bill of Rights may impact
on other legislation. The case also raises the question: would an
Australian Bill of Rights mean the abolition of compensation
discrimination?
On June 12, 2009, the Alberta Court of Appeal released its
decision in Morrow v Zhang [2009] ABCA 215, determining
that the Minor Injury Regulation, A.R. 123/2004 (MIR) was
constitutionally valid. The MIR imposes a $4,000 cap on
non-pecuniary damages for 'minor injuries'.
The plaintiffs, Morrow and Pedersen, had suffered personal
injury in a car accident and their injuries fell within the scope
of the MIR. At the trial, Justice Wittman determined that their
respective non-pecuniary damages exceeded $4,000 and that the MIR
cap would apply. However, he considered that the provisions of the
MIR were discriminatory to persons suffering minor
