Based on Canadian law, give correct answers and explanations please.

Felipe is the manager at an office which sells paper. His employee, Spiros, has been with the company for 15 years. Spiros has been tasked with hiring the new staff for the upcoming paper season. Felipe gives Spiros a set of interview questions, one of which asks about medical history, including medical conditions which may result in wheelchair usage. Spiros is a little uncomfortable with the question, but Felipe tells him that if someone is in a wheelchair, they won't be able to move the reams of paper in the warehouse. Spiros interviews Nancy. When he gets to the questions about wheelchairs, Nancy gets noticeably upset and changes the subject. When she doesn't get hired, she files a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. With the above facts in mind, answer the following: Question 1 (1 point) What form of discrimination is Nancy likely to claim that she experienced? O a) Indirect discrimination O b) Direct discrimination O c) Daunting discrimination Q d) Adverse impact discrimination Question 2 (1 point) Which protected social area would this issue fall under? 0 a) Accommodation 0 b) Contracts 0 c) Goods, services and facilities 0 d) Employment Question 3 (1 point) Which protected ground would Nancy likely claim is engaged? O a) Sex O b) Disability 0 c) Gender 0 d) Creed Question 4 (1 point) Which of the following is the most reasonable potential defence for the employer against a discrimination claim? O a) It isn't discrimination because he didn't like Nancy as a candidate anyway 0 b) They can't have an employee who uses a wheelchair in the workplace because they don't have an elevator O c) It is a bonafide occupational requirement that employees be able to move reams of paper 0 d) It's okay that the hiring may discriminate because the rule was not in writing Question 5 (1 point) Which of the following is NOT true about the employer's duty to accommodate 0 a) The onus of proof for an undue hardship defence lies with the organization responsible for the accommodation O b) They must accommodate to the point of major inconvenience O c) The evidence for proving a defence of undue hardship must be objective 0 d) They must accommodate to the point of undue hardship Question 6 (1 point) True or False: If Sayid, one of the new hires, hits another car during a paper delivery, the employer would be vicariously liable for the accident. Question 7 (1 point) After loads of controversy over his hiring practices, Felipe stepped down from the company and Spiros took over as the manager. The Government of Ontario passed a new law which said that paper manufacturers and retailers had to question their consumers about what they planned to use the paper for, and specifically, if they intended to produce any anti-government propaganda. If the retailer suspected that this was the intended use, they were not permitted to make the sale. Navid went to buy paper to print his school newspaper, which covers political issues relevant to students. Spiros refused to sell to him, afraid that this may contradict the new law. With the above facts in mind, answer the following: Navid wants to challenge the new law under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Which of the following sections of the Charter might be relevant to Navid's challenge? 0 a) Section 2(b), guaranteeing freedom of expression 0 b) Section 2(a), guaranteeing freedom of association O c) Section 7, guaranteeing the right to life, liberty, and security of the person Q d) Section 3, guaranteeing freedom of expression Question 8 (1 point) For the next three questions only, assume that a federal law exists which requires paper manufacturers and retailers to sell paper to all consumers, without questioning the reason for their purchase. Which of the following doctrines would NOT be relevant for Spiros to consider when determining which law he should follow for his business? 0 a) Paramountcy O b) Supremacy O c) Overlap/conflict Q d) Validity Question 9 (1 point) Using the facts from the above question, which is true about the two laws? 0 a) Federal Paramountcy requires that Spiros follow only the provincial law 0 b) It is impossible for both levels of government to legislate over the same issue 0 c) If both laws are validly enacted and it is impossible to follow both, Spiros must follow the federal law and the provincial law will be invalid to the extent that it conflicts with the federal one Q d) It does not matter if Spiros can follow both laws, he only has to concern himself with the provincial law because it was the first law he knew about which gives it priority over the other law Question 10 (1 point) Is there a potential conflict between the federal and provincial laws? 0 a) Yes, because the purpose and effects of each law are the same 0 b) No, it is possible to comply with both 0 c) No, because the federal law takes priority 0 d) Yes, one law requires Spiros to sell the paper without restriction and the other requires restriction on sales Question 11 (10 points) For the purposes of this question only: Navid has filed a suit against the government, claiming that the new law infringes his Charter rights. You are representing the provincial government and are tasked with defending the new law. Assume that the law does restrict Navid's section 2(b) right to freedom of expression. How would you argue that the law is justified? Remember to follow the steps of the Oakes test. Paragraph