D.W.T. v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., (2003) 304 N.R. 201 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 06, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2003), 304 N.R. 201 (SCC);2003 SCC 34;JE 2003-1133;36 RFL (5th) 429;[2003] 1 SCR 835;226 DLR (4th) 1;[2003] 7 WWR 391;301 WAC 1;14 BCLR (4th) 12;122 ACWS (3d) 899;107 CRR (2d) 277;[2003] SCJ No 32 (QL);183 BCAC 1;304 NR 201;[2003] CarswellBC 1350

D.W.T. v. B.C. (A.G.) (2003), 304 N.R. 201 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2003] N.R. TBEd. JN.012

Darrell Wayne Trociuk (appellant) v. Attorney General of British Columbia, the Director of Vital Statistics and Reni Ernst (respondents)

(28726; 2003 SCC 34; 2003 CSC 34)

Indexed As: D.W.T. v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ.

June 6, 2003.

Summary:

Parents of triplets born in 1996 were unmarried. When the mother filled out the birth registration, she indicated "The father is unacknowledged by the mother". The father sought an order of mandamus or, alternatively, the exercise of the court's parens patriae jurisdiction, to compel the Director of Vital Statistics to include infor­mation about the father on birth registration forms and to change the surnames of the children to reflect that inclusion. The father claimed that ss. 3(1) and 3(6) of the Vital Statistics Act violated s. 15 of the Charter because they gave female parents the discre­tion to refuse to acknowledge male parents on birth registration forms. The mother agreed to have the birth register amended by adding the father's particulars. However, she did not agree to the father's request that the children bear a hyphenated surname incor­porating his name.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a judgment reported (1999), 12 B.C.T.C. 148, held that mandamus was unavailable. The court also declined to exercise its parens patriae jurisdiction to direct the use of hy­phenated surnames. The court held that if the provi­sions of the Act violated the father's equality rights, ss. 3(1) and 3(6) of the Act would be saved by s. 1 of the Charter. The father appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Prowse, J.A., dissenting in part, in a judg­ment reported (2001), 152 B.C.A.C. 243; 250 W.A.C. 243, dismissed the father's appeal. The father appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal. Sections 3(1)(b) and 3(6)(b), on their own and in their effect, discriminated against biological fathers on the basis of sex by providing biological mothers with the sole discretion to include or exclude information relating to the biological father when regis­tering the birth of a child, contrary to s. 15(1) of the Charter. The discrimination was not a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1.

Civil Rights - Topic 5648.1

Equality and protection of the law - Par­ticular cases - Vital statistics legislation (incl. birth registration provisions) - Sec­tions 3(1)(b) and 3(6)(b) of the Vital Stat­istics Act gave an unwed biological mother the sole discre­tion to exclude a biological father's par­ticulars from a birth registration if the mother, for any or no reason, chose to "unacknowledge" the father - The father had no recourse to subsequently alter the birth registration - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the provisions violated the father's equality rights by discriminat­ing against him on the basis of sex - The court stated that "the fact that the impugned provisions permit a mother to unacknowledge for good reasons [child product of rape, incest, etc.] does not justify arbitrarily exposing a father, with­out recourse, to the possible disadvantages that flow from an unacknowledgment that protects neither her legitimate interests nor the best interests of the child" - The provi­sions were not saved under s. 1 of the Charter as reasonable limits prescribed by law, because the provisions did not impair the rights of fathers as little as reasonably possible - Buttressing that conclusion were subsequent amendments to the legislation giving fathers some recourse to having birth registrations altered - The court sus­pended the declaration of invalidity for 12 months to permit amendment of the legis­lation to render it valid.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5648.1 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.2

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Declaration of statute invalidity - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5648.1 ].

Infants - Topic 822

Parents of - Birth registration - Rights of parents (incl. unmarried parents) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5648.1 ].

Infants - Topic 823

Parents of - Birth registration - Acknowl­edgement of father - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5648.1 ].

Names - Topic 9

General - Names of children of unmarried parents - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5648.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

Law v. Minister of Employment and Im­migration, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497; 236 N.R. 1, appld. [para. 9].

Sheena B., Re, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315; 176 N.R. 161; 78 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 15].

R.B. v. Children's Aid Society of Metro­politan Toronto - see Sheena B., Re.

R. v. Jones, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 284; 69 N.R. 241; 73 A.R. 133, refd to. [para. 15].

Gosselin v. Québec (Procureur général) (2002), 298 N.R. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

Corbiere et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs) et al., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 203; 239 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 24].

Canadian Newspapers Co. v. Canada, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 122; 87 N.R. 163; 32 O.A.C. 259, refd to. [para. 26].

Young v. Young et al., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3; 160 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 161; 56 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 30].

D.P. v. C.S., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 141; 159 N.R. 241; 58 Q.A.C. 1; 108 D.L.R.(4th) 287, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [para. 33].

Reference Re Sections 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123; 109 N.R. 81; 68 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 34].

Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium et al. v. Canada (Minister of Justice) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1120; 263 N.R. 303; 145 B.C.A.C. 1; 237 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 34].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur gén­éral), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. - see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; 187 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 36].

Manitoba Language Rights Reference, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721; 59 N.R. 321; 35 Man.R.(2d) 83, refd to. [para. 43].

Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 43].

Statutes Noticed:

Health Planning Statutes Amendment Act, S.B.C. 2002, c. 15, sect. 3 [para. 40].

Vital Statistics Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 479, sect. 3(1)(b) [para. 2]; sect. 3(1)(d) [para. 22]; sect. 3(6)(b) [para. 3]; sect. 4(1)(a), [para. 2].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Beaudoin, G-A., and Mendes, E., The Canadian Charter of Rights and Free­doms (3rd Ed. 1996), p. 3-21 [para. 34].

Castelli, M.D., Rapport de l'O.R.C.C. sur le nom et l'identité physique de la personne humaine (1976), 17 C. de D. 372, p. 374 [para. 18].

Elliot, R., Developments in Constitutional Law: The 1989-90 Term (1991), 2 Sup. Ct. L. Rev.(2d) 83, p. 144 [para. 34].

Counsel:

Dairn O. Shane, for the appellant;

Jeffrey M. Loenen, for the respondents, the Attorney General of British Columbia and the Director of Vital Statistics;

Martin O. Screech, for the respondent, Reni Ernst.

Solicitors of Record:

Simpson Thomas & Associates, Vancouver, B.C., for the appellant;

Ministry of the Attorney General of British Columbia, Victoria, B.C., for the respon­dents, the Attorney General of British Columbia and the Director of Vital Stat­istics;

MacIsaac and Co., Nanaimo, B.C., for the respondent, Reni Ernst.

This appeal was heard on December 4, 2002, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On June 6, 2003, Deschamps, J., delivered the following judgment in both official languages for the Court.