Bliss v. Attorney General of Canada, (1978) 23 N.R. 527 (SCC)

• Judge: Martland, Ritchie, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey and Pratte, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 31, 1978
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1978), 23 N.R. 527 (SCC);92 DLR (3d) 417;[1979] 1 SCR 183;23 NR 527;1978 CanLII 25 (SCC);[1978] 6 WWR 711

Bliss v. Can. (A.G.) (1978), 23 N.R. 527 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

Bliss v. Attorney General of Canada

Indexed As: Bliss v. Attorney General of Canada

Supreme Court of Canada

Martland, Ritchie, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey and Pratte, JJ.

October 31, 1978.

Summary:

This case arose out of a claim by a woman for unemployment insurance benefits. The woman made the claim for ordinary benefits a few days after she gave birth to a child, because she was available for work and could find none. The woman was not entitled to pregnancy benefits and did not claim them. However, she was entitled to ordinary benefits and she was denied ordinary benefits because of s. 46 of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Section 46 denied all types of benefits to female claimants during a 14 week period (8 weeks before birth and 6 weeks after birth), where she does not have 10 or more weeks of insurable insurance by a certain time.

The woman appealed the denial of her claim to benefits to a Board of Referees. The Board of Referees dismissed the woman's claim.

On appeal to an Umpire the claimant's appeal was allowed. The Umpire found that s. 46 of the Unemployment Insurance Act was inoperative, because it contravened s. 1(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights.

On appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal the appeal was allowed in a judgment reported 16 N.R. 254 on the grounds that s. 46 did not contravene s. 1(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights. The claimant appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, finding that s. 46 of the Unemployment Insurance Act did not contravene s. 1(b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights.

Civil Rights - Topic 5501

Equality before the law defined - Canadian Bill of Rights, R.S.C. 1970, App. III, s. 1(b) - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the test of whether an individual has been deprived of equality before the law is whether the person has been denied equality of treatment in the administration and enforcement of the law before the ordinary courts of the land - See paragraphs 17 to 19.

Civil Rights - Topic 5502

Right of an individual to equality before the law - Canadian Bill of Rights, R.S.C. 1970, App. III, s. 1(b) - Whether right to equality before the law was abridged - A pregnant woman was denied unemployment insurance benefits because of s. 46 of the Unemployment Insurance Act - The woman was not entitled to pregnancy benefits and did not claim them - However, she was entitled to ordinary benefits and a few days after the birth of her child she applied for and was denied ordinary benefits because of s. 46 - S. 46 denied all types of benefits to female claimants during a 14 week period (8 weeks before birth and 6 weeks after birth), where she does not have 10 or more weeks of insurable employment by a certain time - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 46 did not abridge the woman's right to equality before the law, because it formed an integral part of a valid unemployment insurance scheme - See paragraphs 1 to 27.

Cases Noticed:

Curr v. The Queen, [1972] S.C.R. 889, appld. [para. 16].

R. v. Drybones, [1970] S.C.R. 282, dist. [para. 17].

Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell; Isaac v. Bedard, [1974] S.C.R. 1349, appld. [para. 18].

R. v. Burnshine (1974), 2 N.R. 53; [1975] 1 S.C.R. 693, appld. [para. 18].

Prata v. Minister of M. & I. (1975), 3 N.R. 484; [1976] S.C.R. 376, appld. [para. 25].

Statutes Noticed:

British North America Act, 1867, sect. 91(2A) [para. 2].

Canadian Bill of Rights, R.S.C. 1970, App. III, sect. 1(b) [para. 11].

Unemployment Insurance Act, S.C. 197071-72, c. 48, sect. 16(1)(a) [para. 7]; sect. 17 [para. 5]; sect. 25 [para. 6]; sect. 30, sect. 46 [para. 8].

Counsel:

John Nelligan, Q.C., Lynn Smith and A.H. MacLean, for the appellant;

Derek Aylen, Q.C. and L.S. Holland, for the respondent.

This case was heard on June 7 and 8, 1978, at Ottawa, Ontario, before MARTLAND, RITCHIE, PIGEON, DICKSON, BEETZ, ESTEY and PRATTE, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On October 31, 1978, RITCHIE, J., delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada: