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

JudgeMartland, Ritchie, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey and Pratte, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court (Canada)
Case DateOctober 31, 1978
JurisdictionCanada (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:

To continue reading

Request your trial
101 practice notes
  • Egan and Nesbit v. Canada, (1993) 153 N.R. 161 (FCA)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
    • December 9, 1992
    ...1219; 94 N.R. 373; 58 Man.R.(2d) 161; 59 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [paras. 26, 37, 122, 133]. Bliss v. Canada (Attorney General), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 183; 22 N.R. 527, refd to. [para. McKinney v. University of Guelph et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 229; 118 N.R. 1; 45 O.A.C. 1; 76 D.L.R.(4th) 545; 2 C.......
  • Miron and Valliere v. Trudel et al., (1995) 181 N.R. 253 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • May 25, 1995
    ...to. [para. 14]. Egan and Nesbitt v. Canada (1995), 182 N.R. 161 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 17]. Bliss v. Canada (Attorney General), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 183; 23 N.R. 527 , refd to. [para. Brooks, Allen and Dixon et al. v. Canada Safeway Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1219 ; 94 N.R. 373 ; 58 Man.R.(2......
  • Vriend et al. v. Alberta, (1998) 224 N.R. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • April 2, 1998
    ...[1989] 1 S.C.R. 1219; 94 N.R. 373; 58 Man.R.(2d) 161; 59 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [para. 80]. Bliss v. Canada (Attorney General), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 183; 22 N.R. 527, refd to. [para. R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 3......
  • R. v. Henry (D.B.) et al., (2005) 376 A.R. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • January 12, 2005
    ...v. Canada Safeway Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1219; 94 N.R. 373; 58 Man.R.(2d) 161, refd to. [para. 44]. Bliss v. Canada (Attorney General), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 183; 23 N.R. 527, refd to. [para. 44]. R. v. Bernard, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 833; 90 N.R. 321; 32 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 45]. Quinn v. Leathem......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
72 cases
  • Egan and Nesbit v. Canada, (1993) 153 N.R. 161 (FCA)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
    • December 9, 1992
    ...1219; 94 N.R. 373; 58 Man.R.(2d) 161; 59 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [paras. 26, 37, 122, 133]. Bliss v. Canada (Attorney General), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 183; 22 N.R. 527, refd to. [para. McKinney v. University of Guelph et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 229; 118 N.R. 1; 45 O.A.C. 1; 76 D.L.R.(4th) 545; 2 C.......
  • Miron and Valliere v. Trudel et al., (1995) 181 N.R. 253 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • May 25, 1995
    ...to. [para. 14]. Egan and Nesbitt v. Canada (1995), 182 N.R. 161 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 17]. Bliss v. Canada (Attorney General), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 183; 23 N.R. 527 , refd to. [para. Brooks, Allen and Dixon et al. v. Canada Safeway Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1219 ; 94 N.R. 373 ; 58 Man.R.(2......
  • Vriend et al. v. Alberta, (1998) 224 N.R. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • April 2, 1998
    ...[1989] 1 S.C.R. 1219; 94 N.R. 373; 58 Man.R.(2d) 161; 59 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [para. 80]. Bliss v. Canada (Attorney General), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 183; 22 N.R. 527, refd to. [para. R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 3......
  • R. v. Henry (D.B.) et al., (2005) 376 A.R. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • January 12, 2005
    ...v. Canada Safeway Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1219; 94 N.R. 373; 58 Man.R.(2d) 161, refd to. [para. 44]. Bliss v. Canada (Attorney General), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 183; 23 N.R. 527, refd to. [para. 44]. R. v. Bernard, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 833; 90 N.R. 321; 32 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 45]. Quinn v. Leathem......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
29 books & journal articles
  • The Development of Quasi-constitutionality
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Quasi-constitutional Laws of Canada
    • June 25, 2018
    ...at 1365 [ Lavell ]. See also Smythe , above note 16 at 686. 51 Lavell , above note 50 at 1366–67. 52 Bliss v Canada (Attorney General) , [1979] 1 SCR 183. The Development of Quasi-constitutionality 229 as well as “equal protection and equal benefit of the law,” in hopes that it would result......
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Quasi-constitutional Laws of Canada
    • June 25, 2018
    ...Bilodeau v Manitoba (Attorney General) [1986] 1 SCR 449 .......................24, 259 Bliss v Canada (Attorney General), [1979] 1 SCR 183 ......................................228 Bonner v VIA Rail Canada Inc, 2009 FC 857 ...................................................111 Braithwaite v......
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Labour and Employment Law. Cases, Materials, and Commentary. Ninth Edition
    • June 24, 2018
    ...Concordia University , 2006 SCC 19, [2006] SCJ No 19 ................................ 757, 758, 785 Bliss v Attorney General of Canada, [1979] 1 SCR 183 ................................................................1086 Body v Murdoch, [1954] OWN 658 ............................................
  • Table of cases, index and about the authors
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Seventh Edition
    • June 30, 2021
    ...[2000] 2 SCR 307, 190 DLR (4th) 513.................... 113, 263, 264–65, 266, 267 Table of Cases 551 Bliss v Canada (Attorney General), [1979] 1 SCR 183, 92 DLR (3d) 417............................................................................375, 376, 379 Blueberry River Indian Band v C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT