Falkiner et al. v. Director of Income Maintenance (Ont.) et al., (2000) 134 O.A.C. 324 (DC)
Judge | Lane, Haley and Belleghem, JJ. |
Court | Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada) |
Case Date | October 01, 1999 |
Jurisdiction | Ontario |
Citations | (2000), 134 O.A.C. 324 (DC) |
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.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Federated Anti-Poverty Groups of B.C. et al. v. Vancouver (City) et al., [2002] B.C.T.C. 105 (SC)
...89 O.A.C. 81; 134 D.L.R.(4th) 20 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 277]. Falkiner et al. v. Director of Income Maintenance (Ont.) et al. (2000), 134 O.A.C. 324; 188 D.L.R.(4th) 52 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band et al., [2000] B.C.T.C. 54......
-
Falkiner et al. v. Director of Income Maintenance (Ont.) et al., (2002) 159 O.A.C. 135 (CA)
...and was not justified under s. 1. The Province appealed. The Ontario Divisional Court, Belleghem, J., dissenting, in a judgment reported 134 O.A.C. 324 (Falkiner appeal), dismissed the appeal. The definition of "spouse" discriminated on the basis of sex, violated the equality rights of sing......
-
Falkiner et al. v. Director of Income Maintenance (Ont.) et al., (2000) 136 O.A.C. 100 (CA)
...et al. Ontario Court of Appeal Osborne, A.C.J.O. July 24, 2000. Summary: The Ontario Divisional Court, in a decision reported at (2000), 134 O.A.C. 324, held that the definition of "spouse" contained in s. 1(1)(d) of Regulation 366 under the Family Benefits Act was unconstitutional. The cou......
-
Federated Anti-Poverty Groups of B.C. et al. v. Vancouver (City) et al., [2002] B.C.T.C. 105 (SC)
...89 O.A.C. 81; 134 D.L.R.(4th) 20 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 277]. Falkiner et al. v. Director of Income Maintenance (Ont.) et al. (2000), 134 O.A.C. 324; 188 D.L.R.(4th) 52 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band et al., [2000] B.C.T.C. 54......
-
Falkiner et al. v. Director of Income Maintenance (Ont.) et al., (2002) 159 O.A.C. 135 (CA)
...and was not justified under s. 1. The Province appealed. The Ontario Divisional Court, Belleghem, J., dissenting, in a judgment reported 134 O.A.C. 324 (Falkiner appeal), dismissed the appeal. The definition of "spouse" discriminated on the basis of sex, violated the equality rights of sing......
-
Falkiner et al. v. Director of Income Maintenance (Ont.) et al., (2000) 136 O.A.C. 100 (CA)
...et al. Ontario Court of Appeal Osborne, A.C.J.O. July 24, 2000. Summary: The Ontario Divisional Court, in a decision reported at (2000), 134 O.A.C. 324, held that the definition of "spouse" contained in s. 1(1)(d) of Regulation 366 under the Family Benefits Act was unconstitutional. The cou......