Egan and Nesbit v. Canada, (1995) 182 N.R. 161 (SCC)
Judge | Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ. |
Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
Case Date | November 01, 1994 |
Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
Citations | (1995), 182 N.R. 161 (SCC);[1995] SCJ No 43 (QL);1995 CanLII 98 (SCC);12 RFL (4th) 201;96 FTR 80;29 CRR (2d) 79;182 NR 161;124 DLR (4th) 609;[1995] 2 SCR 513 |
Egan v. Can. (1995), 182 N.R. 161 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
....................
James Egan and John Norris Nesbit (appellants) v. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada (respondent) and Attorney General of Quebec, Canadian Human Rights Commission, Commission des droits de la personne du Québec, Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere, Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto, Inter-Faith Coalition on Marriage and the Family, and Canadian Labour Congress (interveners)
(File No. 23636)
Indexed As: Egan and Nesbit v. Canada
Supreme Court of Canada
Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
May 25, 1995.
Summary:
The plaintiffs, a homosexual couple, commenced an action for a declaration that the definition of the word "spouse" in s. 2 of the Old Age Security Act constituted discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation contrary to s. 15 of the Charter.
The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, in a decision reported 47 F.T.R. 305, dismissed the plaintiffs' action. The plaintiffs appealed.
The Federal Court of Appeal, Linden, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported 153 N.R. 161, dismissed the appeal. The plaintiffs appealed again.
The Supreme Court of Canada, with L'Heureux-Dubé, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.
Civil Rights - Topic 953
Discrimination - Sexual orientation - Homosexuals - The Old Age Security Act, s. 2, defined "spouse" as including persons of the opposite sex who lived together for over a year and publicly represented themselves as husband and wife - A homosexual couple argued that this definition, which in effect denied them a "spousal allowance", constituted discrimination because of sexual orientation (Charter, s. 15(1)) - The Supreme Court of Canada, per La Forest, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., Gonthier and Major, JJ., concurring), held that the definition of "spouse" did not infringe the Charter, s. 15(1), and even if it did, the infringement was justifiable under s. 1 - See paragraphs 1 to 30 - Sopinka, J., held that s. 15 was infringed, but the infringement was justified under s. 1 - See paragraphs 31 to 40 - L'Heureux-Dubé, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ., dissenting, opined that the definition was discriminatory and not justifiable under s. 1 - See paragraphs 41 to 232.
Civil Rights - Topic 953
Discrimination - Sexual orientation - Homosexuals - The Supreme Court of Canada, per La Forest, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., Gonthier and Major, JJ., concurring), held that sexual orientation was a ground analogous to the grounds enumerated in s. 15 of the Charter - See paragraph 5 - Cory and Iacobucci, JJ., in joint dissenting reasons, agreed that sexual orientation was an analogous ground of discrimination - See paragraphs 99 to 106.
Civil Rights - Topic 5516
Equality and protection of the law - Tests for inequality - A homosexual couple claimed that certain Old Age Security Act provisions discriminated against them because of sexual orientation (Charter, s. 15) - The Supreme Court of Canada, per La Forest, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., Gonthier and Major, JJ., concurring), in analyzing the s. 15 issue, applied a three step test (i.e. (1) whether the law created a distinction; (2) whether the distinction caused disadvantage; and (3) whether the distinction was based on an irrelevant personal characteristic enumerated in s. 15(1) or analogous thereto) - See paragraphs 7 to 30 - Cory and Iacobucci, JJ., dissenting, discussed how to apply s. 15(1) - See paragraphs 55 to 109 - L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting, after noting the divergent approaches to s. 15 in recent cases before the court, set out a framework for a s. 15 analysis - See paragraphs 160 to 213 - McLachlin, J., dissenting, applied the principles she discussed in Miron v. Trudel - See paragraph 232.
Civil Rights - Topic 8348
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 953 ].
Civil Rights - Topic 8380.1
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Reading in - The Supreme Court of Canada, per Cory and Iacobucci, JJ., in joint dissenting reasons, discussed the options available to the court under s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act when legislation is found to be unconstitutional, and in particular, the court's power to "read in" or "readout/read down" impugned legislation - See paragraphs 145 to 156.
Civil Rights - Topic 8380.18
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Reading down - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8380.1 ].
Civil Rights - Topic 8668
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Equality rights (s. 15) - What constitutes a breach of s. 15 - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 953 ].
Civil Rights - Topic 8672
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Equality rights (s. 15) - Analogous categories - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 953 ].
Government Programs - Topic 1605
Old age pensions - Spousal allowances - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 953 ].
Cases Noticed:
Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689; 153 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 5].
Miron and Valliere v. Trudel et al. (1995), 181 N.R. 253 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 6, 161, 232].
Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [paras. 7, 56, 162].
Symes v. Minister of National Revenue, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 695; 161 N.R. 243, refd to. [paras. 13, 61, 208].
R. v. Turpin, Siddiqui and Clauzel, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1296; 96 N.R. 115; 34 O.A.C. 115; 48 C.C.C.(3d) 8; 69 C.R.(3d) 97; 39 C.R.R. 306, refd to. [paras. 13, 56, 167].
R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 37 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 85 C.L.L.C. 14,023; 13 C.R.R. 64, refd to. [paras. 13, 138, 161].
United States of America v. Cotroni; United States of America v. El Zein, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1469; 96 N.R. 321; 23 Q.A.C. 182; 48 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 13].
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.R.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [paras. 15, 33, 141, 165].
Mahe, Martel, Dubé et al. v. Alberta (1987), 80 A.R. 161; 54 Alta. L.R.(2d) 212 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].
Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur géneral), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2; 58 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 25 C.P.R.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 37].
R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 19 C.R.R. 308, refd to. [paras. 52, 199].
Human Rights Commission (Ont.) and O'Malley v. Simpsons Sears, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536; 64 N.R. 161; 12 O.A.C. 241; 23 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 52 O.R.(2d) 799; 9 C.C.E.L. 185; 17 Admin. L.R. 89; 86 C.L.L.C. 17,002, refd to. [paras. 66, 176].
Tétreault-Gadoury v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 22; 126 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 84].
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954), 347 U.S. 483 (U.S. Supreme Ct.), refd to. [para. 89].
Brooks, Allen and Dixon et al. v. Canada Safeway Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1219; 94 N.R. 373; 58 Man.R.(2d) 161; 59 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [paras. 94, 224].
Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1; 93 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [paras. 94, 228].
Janzen and Govereau v. Pharos Restaurant and Grammas et al., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1252; 95 N.R. 81; 58 Man.R.(2d) 1; 59 D.L.R.(4th) 352; [1989] 4 W.W.R. 39, refd to. [para. 95].
Janzen v. Platy Enterprises - see Janzen and Govereau v. Pharos Restaurant and Grammas et al.
R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; 125 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 81; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 100].
Douglas v. Canada (1992), 58 F.T.R. 147 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 101].
Vriend et al. v. Alberta (1994), 152 A.R. 1 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 104].
Veysey v. Correctional Service of Canada (1989), 29 F.T.R. 74; 44 C.R.R. 364 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 105].
Brown v. British Columbia (Minister of Health) (1990), 42 B.C.L.R.(2d) 294 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 105].
Knodel v. Medical Services Commission (B.C.) (1991), 58 B.C.L.R.(2d) 356 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 105].
Leshner v. Ontario (1992), 16 C.H.R.R. D/184 (Bd. of Inquiry), refd to. [para. 105].
Conway v. Canada, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 872; 154 N.R. 392; 105 D.L.R.(4th) 210; 83 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [paras. 107, 180].
Weatherall v. Canada (Attorney General) - see Conway v. Canada.
R. v. Hess; R. v. Nguyen, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 906; 119 N.R. 353; 46 O.A.C. 13; 73 Man.R.(2d) 1; 3 W.A.C. 1; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 289; 79 C.R.(3d) 332; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 161, refd to. [paras. 107, 180].
Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 554; 149 N.R. 1; 100 D.L.R.(4th) 658, refd to. [paras. 124, 209].
Haig and Birch v. Canada et al. (1991), 5 O.R.(3d) 245 (Gen. Div.), affd. (1992), 57 O.A.C. 272; 9 O.R.(3d) 495 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 152].
Thibaudeau v. Minister of National Revenue (1995), 182 N.R. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 161].
R. v. Généreux, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 259; 133 N.R. 241; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 88 D.L.R.(4th) 110, refd to. [para. 179].
Schachtschneider v. Minister of National Revenue, [1994] 1 F.C. 40; 154 N.R. 321 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 187].
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 199].
Reference re Sections 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123; [1990] 4 W.W.R. 481; 109 N.R. 81; 68 Man.R.(2d) 1; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 65; 77 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 205].
Bliss v. Canada (Attorney General), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 183; 23 N.R. 527, refd to. [para. 224].
Statutes Noticed:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 30 et seq.]; sect. 15 [para. 1 et seq.].
Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 52(1) [paras. 44, 81, 145].
Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 158, generally [para. 80].
Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act Regulations (B.C.), Reg. 479/76, sect. 2(d), sect. 3(2) [para. 129]; sect. 8 [para. 130]; sect. 10 [para. 129].
Old Age Security Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. O-9, sect. 2 [para. 3 et seq.]; sect. 19(1) [paras. 3, 44].
Resolution on Equal Rights for Homosexuals and Lesbians in the European Community (U.K.), A3-0028/94, generally [para. 103].
Saskatchewan Assistance Act Regulations (Sask.), Reg. 78/66, generally [para. 129].
Social Welfare Act Regulations (N.B.), Reg. 82-227, generally [para. 129].
Welfare Assistance Act Regulations (P.E.I.), Reg. EC 746/84, generally [para. 129].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Abella, Rosalie Silberman, Report of the Commission on Equality in Employment (1984), p. 9 [para. 167].
Bayefsky, Anne F., A Case Comment on the First Three Equality Rights Cases Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Andrews, Workers' Compensation Reference, Turpin (1990), 1 Supreme Court L.R.(2d) 503, pp. 518, 519 [para. 207]; 528 [para. 202].
Canada, Equality for All: Report of the Parliamentary Committee on Equality Rights (1985), pp. 26, 30, 31, 32 [para. 101].
Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, October 22, 1979, vol. 1, 1st Sess., 31st Parl., p. 476 [para. 34].
Canada, House of Commons, Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence (June 12, 1975), p. 25:7 [para. 113].
Duclos, Nitya, An Argument for Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage, in Carol Rogerson, Family Law Cases and Materials (1991-92), vol. 1, p. 194 [para. 139].
Eichler, Margrit, Families in Canada Today: Recent Changes and their Policy Consequences (2nd Ed. 1988), generally [para. 139].
Gibson, Dale, Analogous Grounds of Discrimination Under the Canadian Charter: Too Much Ado About Next to Nothing (1991), 29 Alta. L. Rev. 772, generally [para. 171].
Gibson, Dale, Equality for Some (1991), 40 U.N.B.L.J. 2, generally [para. 171].
Gibson, Dale, The Law of the Charter: Equality Rights (1990), generally [para. 171].
Hansard - see Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates.
Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (3rd Ed. 1992), pp. 911, 912 [para. 32].
Iyer, N., Categorical Denials: Equality Rights and the Shaping of Social Identity (1993), 19 Queen's L.J. 179, generally [para. 207].
Lepofsky, M. David, The Canadian Judicial Approach to Equality Rights: Freedom Ride or Rollercoaster? (1992), 1 N.J.C.L. 315, generally [para. 167].
Petersen, Cynthia, A Queer Response to Bashing: Legislating Against Hate (1991), 15 Queen's L.J. 237, generally [para. 101].
Quebec, Commission des droits de la personne, Comité de consultation, De l'illégalité à l'égalité: Rapport de la consultation publique sur la violence et la discrimination envers les gais et lesbiennes (May 1994), p. 125 [para. 102].
Smith, C. Lynn, Judicial Interpretation of Equality Rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Some Clear and Present Dangers (1988), 23 U.B.C.L. Rev. 65, p. 86 [para. 164].
Smith, Carolyn Gibson, Proud but Cautious: Homophobic Abuse and Discrimination in Nova Scotia, Nova Scotia Public Interest Research Group (July 1994), generally [para. 101].
Vanier Institute of the Family, Profiling Canada's Families (1994), pp. 67 [para. 73]; 71, 74 [para. 74].
Counsel:
Joseph J. Arvay, Q.C., and Leah Greathead, for the appellants;
H.J. Wruck, Q.C., F.E. Campbell, Q.C., and L.M. Hitch, for the respondent;
Madeleine Aubé, for the intervener, Quebec (Attorney General);
William F. Pentney and J. Helen Beck, for the intervener, the Canadian Human Rights Commission;
Hélène Tessier, for the intervener, the Commission des droits de la personne du Quebec;
Cynthia Petersen, for the intervener, Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere;
Charles M. Campbell and Susan Ursel, for the intervener, Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto;
Peter R. Jervis and Iain T. Benson, for the intervener, Inter-Faith Coalition on Marriage and the Family;
Steven Barrett and Vanessa Payne, for the intervener, the Canadian Labour Congress.
Solicitors of Record:
Arvay Finlay, Victoria, British Columbia, for the appellants;
Department of Justice, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent;
Madeleine Aubé, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, for the intervener, Quebec (Attorney General);
William F. Pentney, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener, the Canadian Human Rights Commission;
Hélène Tessier, Montreal, Quebec, for the intervener, the Commission des droits de la personne du Québec;
Cynthia Petersen, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener, Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere;
Iler, Campbell, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto;
Lerner & Associates, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, Inter-Faith Coalition on Marriage and the Family;
Sack Goldblatt Mitchell, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Canadian Labour Congress.
This case was heard on November 1, 1994, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., for the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered in both official languages, on May 25, 1995, including the following opinions:
La Forest, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., Gonthier and Major, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 30;
Sopinka, J., concurring in the result - see paragraphs 31 to 40;
Cory and Iacobucci, JJ., joint dissenting reasons - see paragraphs 41 to 159;
L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 160 to 231;
McLachlin, J., dissenting - see paragraph 232.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chamberlain et al. v. Board of Education of School District No. 36 (Surrey), 2002 SCC 86
...R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295 ; 58 N.R. 81 ; 60 A.R. 161 , refd to. [para. 135]. Egan and Nesbitt v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; 182 N.R. 161 , refd to. [para. Shell Canada Products Ltd. v. Vancouver (City), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 231 ; 163 N.R. 81 ; 41 B.C.A.C. 81 ; 66 ......
-
Bilodeau-Massé c. Canada (Procureur général),
...Corbiere v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 203 , (1999), 173 D.L.R. (4th) 1 ; Egan v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513, (1995), 124 D.L.R. (4th) 609; Reference re Supreme Court Act , ss. 5 and 6, 2014 SCC 21 , [2014] 1 S.C.R. 433 ; R. v. Lloyd, 2016 SCC 13......
-
Dunmore v. Ontario (Attorney General), [2001] 3 SCR 1016
...Employees Union, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 211 ; R. v. Advance Cutting & Coring Ltd., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 209 , 2001 SCC 70 ; Egan v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; R. v. Beaulac, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 768 ; Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada v. Canada, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 139 ; Osborne v. Canada (Tre......
-
Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No. 36, 2002 SCC 86
... [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835 ; Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493 ; R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295 ; Egan v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; Nanaimo (City) v. Rascal Trucking Ltd., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 342 , 2000 SCC 13 ; Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 554 ; ......
-
Deegan c. Canada (Procureur général),
...(4th) 1; Egan v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513, (1995), 124 C......
-
Chamberlain et al. v. Board of Education of School District No. 36 (Surrey), (2002) 175 B.C.A.C. 161 (SCC)
...R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295 ; 58 N.R. 81 ; 60 A.R. 161 , refd to. [para. 135]. Egan and Nesbitt v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; 182 N.R. 161 , refd to. [para. Shell Canada Products Ltd. v. Vancouver (City), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 231 ; 163 N.R. 81 ; 41 B.C.A.C. 81 ; 66 ......
-
Dunmore v. Ontario (Attorney General), [2001] 3 SCR 1016
...Employees Union, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 211 ; R. v. Advance Cutting & Coring Ltd., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 209 , 2001 SCC 70 ; Egan v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; R. v. Beaulac, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 768 ; Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada v. Canada, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 139 ; Osborne v. Canada (Tre......
-
Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No. 36, 2002 SCC 86
... [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835 ; Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493 ; R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295 ; Egan v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; Nanaimo (City) v. Rascal Trucking Ltd., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 342 , 2000 SCC 13 ; Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 554 ; ......
-
Québec: what protection from discrimination do employees have on the grounds of sexual orientation?
...rights law in Canada. [1] The Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11, s. 15 [2] Egan v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513 [3] Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493 [4] Québec, Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, CQLR c C-12 [5] Idem, s. 52 Canada and particu......
-
Limitation of Charter Rights
...v Canada , [1992] 2 SCR 679 at 709: “budgetary considerations cannot be used to justify a violation under s 1”; Egan v Canada , [1995] 2 SCR 513 at para 99; Reference Re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court of Prince Edward Island , [1997] 3 SCR 3 at para 281; Martin , above n......
-
Table of cases
...116 Edwards v Law Society of Upper Canada, 2001 SCC 80 ..................................... 48 Egan v Canada, [1995] 2 SCR 513, 124 DLR (4th) 609 , [1995] SCJ No 43 ........ 358 Eldridge v British Columbia (AG), [1997] 3 SCR 624 , 151 DLR (4th) 577 , [1997] SCJ No 86 ....................
-
Table of cases
...rev’g [2001] 11 WWR 685 (BCSC) ............................................................................ 60, 387 Egan v Canada, [1995] 2 SCR 513, 124 DLR (4th) 609 ..........................91, 363−66, 375, 385−86, 457−58 Eldridge v British Columbia (Attorney General), [1997] 3 SCR ......
-
Measuring judicial activism on the Supreme Court of Canada: a comment on Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v. NAPE.
...Brothers Construction Ltd., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 705 * Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (A.G.), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326 * * Egan v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513 * * Ford v. Quebec (A.G.), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712 * * Godbout v. Longueuil (City of), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 844 * * Granovsky v. Canada (Minister......