Falkiner et al. v. Director of Income Maintenance (Ont.) et al.

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Judge: Lane, Haley and Belleghem, JJ.
• Citation: (2000), 134 O.A.C. 324 (DC)
• Date: 01 October 1999

Falkiner v. Income Maintenance Dir. (2000), 134 O.A.C. 324 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] O.A.C. TBEd. JL.034

Sandra Falkiner, Deborah Sears, Cynthia Johnston-Pepping and Claude Marie Cadieux (appellants, respondents in Appeal) v. Director, Income Maintenance Branch, Ministry of Community and Social Services and Attorney General of Ontario (respondents, appellants in appeal) and Canadian Civil Liberties Association (intervenor)

(557/98)

Indexed As: Falkiner et al. v. Director of Income Maintenance (Ont.) et al.

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Divisional Court

Lane, Haley and Belleghem, JJ.

June 28, 2000.

Summary:

The four claimants were sole support mothers of dependent children. Each claim­ant was living with a person of the opposite sex who was not the children's father. The Director of Income Maintenance ruled that the claimants were "spouses" and therefore lost their eligibility to receive benefits as sole support parents after 1995 amendments to the definition of spouse in the Family Benefits Act Regulations and General Wel­fare Assistance Act Regulations which af­fected cohabiting couples. Three of the claimants sought a review by the Social Assistance Review Board (SARB) of the decision respecting their eligibility for bene­fits. While the review was pending, the claimants commenced judicial review pro­ceedings, arguing that the amended regula­tions were ultra vires the enabling legislation and contrary to ss. 7 and 15(1) of the Charter.

The Ontario Divisional Court, Rosenberg, J., dissenting, in a decision reported 94 O.A.C. 109, dismissed the application, hold­ing that the impugned regulations were intra vires the Family Benefits Act and the Gen­eral Welfare Assistance Act. The court, Rosenberg, J., dissenting on this point, held that the claimants' Charter challenge was premature because the right of appeal to the SARB had not been exhausted. The SARB thereafter overturned the decisions of the Director and ordered that the claimants' benefits be reinstated. The Board held that the claimants fell within the definition of "spouse"; however, the definition offended the Charter and was not saved by s. 1. The Province appealed and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association intervened.

The Ontario Divisional Court, Belleghem, J., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Editor's Note - The decision of the court was stayed pending appeal - See (2000), 136 O.A.C. 100.

Civil Rights - Topic 1066

Discrimination - By sex - What constitutes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5648 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 5500

Equality and protection of the law - Gen­eral principles and definitions - General - The Ontario Divisional Court reviewed the approach to be taken to an analysis under s. 15 of the Charter - See paragraphs 51 to 61.

Civil Rights - Topic 5648

Equality and protection of the law - Social assistance legislation - 1995 amendments to Regulations under the Family Benefits Act and General Welfare Assistance Act changed the definition of "spouse" which affected cohabiting couples - Four claim­ants, who were sole support mothers of dependent children each living with a man who was not their children's father, alleged that the amended Regulation was contrary to s. 15 of the Charter - The Ontario Divi­sional Court held that the Regulation was contrary to s. 15 of the Charter and could not be saved by s. 1 - The amended Regu­lation created a distinction between sole support parents on social assistance and sole support parents not on social as­sistance - That distinction was based on the enumerated ground of sex and on anal­ogous grounds - The effect of the Regula­tion disproportionately burdened women particularly because most sole support parents were women - See paragraphs 1 to 148.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (s. 1) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5648 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8668

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Equality rights (s. 15) - What constitutes a breach of s. 15 - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5648 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8672

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Equality rights (s. 15) - Analogous cate­gories - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5648 ].

Social Assistance - Topic 852

Claims - Benefits - Entitlement - Bars - Cohabitation - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5648 ].

Social Assistance - Topic 853

Claims - Benefits - Entitlement - Bars - Spousal relationship - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5648 ].

Social Assistance - Topic 950

Claims - Bars - Mother (claimant) living with another person as husband and wife - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5648 ].

Social Assistance - Topic 1028

Claims - Appeal to courts or judicial re­view - Standard of review - The Ontario Divisional Court discussed the standard of review on an appeal from a decision of the Social Assistance Review Board under the Family Benefits Act or the General Wel­fare Assistance Act - See paragraphs 11 to 15.

Cases Noticed:

Wedekind v. Director of Income Main­tenance (Ont.) (1994), 75 O.A.C. 358; 21 O.R.(3d) 289 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 13, 251].

Equity Waste Management Canada v. Halton Hills (Town) (1997), 103 O.A.C. 324; 35 O.R.(3d) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Corporation of the Canadian Civil Liber­ties Association v. Canada (Attorney General) (1998), 111 O.A.C. 51; 161 D.L.R.(4th) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Andrews et al. v. Grand & Toy (Alberta) Ltd. et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229; 19 N.R. 50; 8 A.R. 182; [1978] 1 W.W.R. 577; 83 D.L.R.(3d) 452; 3 C.C.L.T. 225, refd to. [para. 53].

Law v. Minister of Employment and Im­migration, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497; 236 N.R. 1; 170 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [paras. 53, 192].

Corbière 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. 60].

M. v. H., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3; 238 N.R. 179; 121 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 64].

Miron and Valliere v. Trudel et al., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 418; 181 N.R. 253; 81 O.A.C. 253; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 693, refd to. [paras. 64, 189].

Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519; 158 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 1; 56 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 81].

Thibaudeau v. Minister of National Reve­nue, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 627; 182 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 83].

Symes v. Minister of National Revenue, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 695; 161 N.R. 243, refd to. [para. 84].

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, refd to. [para. 84].

Janzen v. Platy Enterprises - see Janzen and Govereau v. Pharos Restaurant and Grammas et al.

R. v. Rehberg (1994), 127 N.S.R.(2d) 331; 355 A.P.R. 331; 111 D.L.R.(4th) 336 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 92].

Masse v. Ontario (Minister of Community and Social Services) (1996), 89 O.A.C. 81; 134 D.L.R.(4th) 20 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 93, 240].

Schaff v. Canada (1993), 18 C.R.R.(2d) 143 (T.C.C.), refd to. [para. 95].

Dunmore v. Ontario (Attorney General) (1997), 47 O.T.C. 53; 37 O.R.(3d) 287, affd. [1999] O.J. No. 1104 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 98].

Dartmouth/Halifax County Regional Hous­ing Authority v. Sparks (1993), 119 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 330 A.P.R. 91; 101 D.L.R.(4th) 224 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 99].

R. v. Turpin, Siddiqui and Clauzel, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1296; 96 N.R. 115; 34 O.A.C. 115, refd to. [para. 119].

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, refd to. [para. 120].

Ontario Human Rights Commission - see Human Rights Commission (Ont.).

Eldridge et al. v. British Columbia (At­torney General) et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624; 218 N.R. 161; 96 B.C.A.C. 81; 155 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200, refd to. [paras. 127, 250].

Egan and Nesbit v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; 182 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 127].

Vriend et al. v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; 224 N.R. 1; 212 A.R. 237; 168 W.A.C. 237; 156 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 127].

Warwick v. Minister of Community and Social Services (1978), 21 O.R.(2d) 528 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 185].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Pyke et al. (1998), 115 O.A.C. 162 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 187].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 554; 149 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 188].

Bowen v. Gilliard (1987), 107 S.C.T. 3008 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 242].

R. v. Heywood (R.L.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761; 174 N.R. 81; 50 B.C.A.C. 161; 82 W.A.C. 161; 120 D.L.R.(4th) 348, refd to. [para. 245].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 125]; sect. 15(1) [para. 51].

Family Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F-2, sect. 15 [para. 11].

Family Benefits Act Regulations (Ont.), sect. 1(1)(d), sect. 1(2), sect. 1(3) [para. 8].

General Welfare Assistance Act Regula­tions (Ont.), R.S.O. 1990, c. G-6, gener­ally [para. 7].

Counsel:

Raj Anand, M. Kate Stephenson and Chan­tal Tie, for the appellants, respondents in appeal;

Janet Minor and Sarah Kraicer, for the respondents, appellants in appeal;

Martin Doane for the intervenor.

This appeal was heard on September 27 to 30 and October 1, 1999, before Lane, Haley and Belleghem, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court. The decision of the court was released on June 28, 2000, including the following opinions:

Lane and Haley, JJ. - see paragraphs 1 to 148;

Belleghem, J., dissenting - see paragra­phs 149 to 266.