Falkiner et al. v. Ontario (Attorney General), (1996) 94 O.A.C. 109 (DC)

• Judge: Saunders, Rosenberg and Borins, JJ.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: Tuesday October 29, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1996), 94 O.A.C. 109 (DC)

Falkiner v. Ont. (A.G.) (1996), 94 O.A.C. 109 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

In The Matter Of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. J-1,

And In The Matter Of Ontario Regulations 409/95, 410/95, Regulations 366 and 537, R.R.O. 1990,

And In The Matter Of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Sandra Elizabeth Falkiner, Claude Marie Cadieux, Cynthia Pauline Johnston and Deborah Ann Sears (applicants) v. Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Attorney General of Ontario (respondents) and Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (intervenor) and Canadian Civil Liberties Association (intervenor) and Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law (intervenor)

(810/95)

Indexed As: Falkiner et al. v. Ontario (Attorney General)

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Divisional Court

Saunders, Rosenberg and Borins, JJ.

October 29, 1996.

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 claimants were deemed to be "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 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, 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.

For a report of an earlier proceeding in this matter - see 87 O.A.C. 374.

Administrative Law - Topic 3302

Judicial review - Bars - Alternate remedy - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3303 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3303

Judicial review - Bars - Appeal or review available - The claimants' social assist­ance benefits were terminated because of 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 of the Director's decision by the Social As­sist­ance Review Board (SARB) - While the review was pending, the claimants com­menced judicial review proceedings, ar­guing, inter alia, that certain provisions of the Regulations violated the Charter - The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the Charter challenge as premature - The claimants had not exhausted the compre­hensive statutory scheme of review - The court also expressed concern that the SARB decision could render the matter moot and without the SARB deci­sion there was no full and complete factual record - See paragraphs 1 to 23.

Administrative Law - Topic 3307

Judicial review - Bars - Record incom­plete - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3303 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3348

Judicial review - Practice - Time for application - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3303 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 660.3

Liberty - Limitations on - Social assist­ance - 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 claimants were deemed to be "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 - The claimants challenged the amended provi­sions under s. 7 of the Charter - The Ontario Divi­sional Court declined to deal with the Charter applica­tion, holding that it was premature - Ro­senberg, J., in a dissenting judgment, opined that the claimants failed to establish a s. 7 breach - See paragraphs 3, 99 to 105.

Civil Rights - Topic 1204

Security of the person - Right to social assistance - [See Civil Rights - Topic 660.3 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 5648

Equality and protection of the law - Social assistance legislation - 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 claimants were deemed to be "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 - The claim­ants chal­lenged the amended provi­sions under s. 15 of the Charter - The Ontario Divisional Court declined to deal with the Charter application, holding that it was premature - Ro­senberg, J., in a dissenting judgment, opined that the a­mendments were discrim­inatory and could not be justified under s. 1 of the Charter - See paragraphs 3, 106 to 135.

Civil Rights - Topic 8363

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Jurisdic­tion (incl. court of competent jurisdiction) - The claimants commenced judicial review proceedings, arguing that certain provisions of the Family Benefits Act Regulations and General Welfare Assist­ance Act Reg­ulations were ultra vires enabling legisla­tion - The claimants also sought a remedy under s. 24 of the Char­ter, arguing that the impugned regulations were contrary to the Charter - The Ontario Divisional Court noted that this was not a case where a declaration of unconstitu­tionality was sought under s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, but a direct consti­tutional attack on subordinate legislation under s. 24 of the Charter - The court expressed concern as to whether the Char­ter challenge was properly before the Divisional Court or whether the matter should be before a trial court - See para­graphs 21, 22.

Civil Rights - Topic 8584

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Time for raising Charter issues - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3303 ].

Courts - Topic 7503

Provincial courts - Ontario - Divisional Court - Jurisdiction - Respecting judicial review - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8363 ].

Social Assistance - Topic 852

Claims - Benefits - Entitlement - Bars - Cohabitation - 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 claimants were deemed to be "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 - The claimants argued that the amended regulations were ultra vires - The Ontario Divisional Court held that the regulations were intra vires their en­abling statutes - See para­graphs 3 and 87 to 98.

Social Assistance - Topic 852

Claims - Benefits - Entitlement - Bars - Cohabitation - 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 claimants were deemed to be "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 - The claimants chal­lenged the amended provi­sions under ss. 7 and 15 of the Char­ter - The Ontario Divi­sional Court declined to deal with the Charter applica­tion, holding that it was premature - Ro­senberg, J., in a dissenting judgment, opined that a s. 7 breach was not estab­lished, but the a­mendments were discrimi­natory and could not be justified under s. 1 of the Charter - See paragraphs 3, 106 to 135.

Social Assistance - Topic 853

Claims - Benefits - Entitlement - Bars - Spousal relationship - [See both Social Assistance - Topic 852 ].

Social Assistance - Topic 950

Claims - Bars - Mother (claimant) living with another person as husband and wife - [See both Social Assistance - Topic 852 ].

Social Assistance - Topic 1022

Claims - Appeals to courts or judicial review - When available - [See Ad­ministrative Law - Topic 3303 and Civil Rights - Topic 8363 ].

Statutes - Topic 5367

Operation and effect - Delegated legisla­tion - Regulations - Validity of - Ultra vires - Whether purpose authorized by empowering statute - [See first Social Assist­ance - Topic 852 ].

Cases Noticed:

Skapinker v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 357; 53 N.R. 169; 3 O.A.C. 321; 11 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 9 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 8 C.R.R. 193, refd to. [para. 9].

Ontario College of Art et al. v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.) (1993), 63 O.A.C. 393; 11 O.R.(3d) 798 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 10].

R.N. v. M.D. (1986), 16 O.A.C. 75; 54 O.R.(2d) 550 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 11].

Ressel v. Board of Directors of Chiropractic (Ont.) (1990), 41 O.A.C. 321 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 11].

Canada (Department of National Defence) v. Workers' Compensation Board (Ont.) (1992), 8 Admin. L.R.(2d) 122 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 11].

Pringle v. Fraser, [1972] S.C.R. 821, refd to. [para. 13].

Steele v. Mountain Institution, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1385; 121 N.R. 198; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 13].

Idziak v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 631; 144 N.R. 327; 59 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 13].

Kourtessis et al. v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 53; 153 N.R. 1; 27 B.C.A.C. 81; 45 W.A.C. 81; [1993] 4 W.W.R. 225; 81 C.C.C.(3d) 286; 102 D.L.R.(4th) 456, refd to. [para. 13].

Reza v. Minister of Employment and Im­migration, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 394; 167 N.R. 282; 72 O.A.C. 348; 21 C.R.R.(2d) 236; 24 Imm. L.R.(2d) 117, refd to. [para. 13].

Peiroo v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1989), 34 O.A.C. 43; 69 O.R.(2d) 253 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Labour Relations Board (Ont.) et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5; 122 N.R. 361; 47 O.A.C. 271; 81 D.L.R.(4th) 121, refd to. [paras. 14, 132].

Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321; 125 D.L.R.(4th) 583; 95 C.L.L.C. 210-027; 12 C.C.E.L.(2d) 1; 24 C.C.L.T.(2d) 217, refd to. [para. 14].

Mohamed v. Metropolitan Toronto (De­partment of Social Services) et al. (1996), 89 O.A.C. 339; 133 D.L.R.(4th) 108 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. St. Mary's Cement Corp. et al. (1996), 89 O.A.C. 298; 28 O.R.(3d) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Eton Construction Co. v. Ontario - see R. v. St. Mary's Cement Corp. et al.

Eton Construction Co. v. Ontario (1991), 6 O.R.(3d) 42 (Gen. Div.), affd. (1996), 89 O.A.C. 298; 28 O.R.(3d) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Woodglen & Co. v. North York (City) (1983), 42 O.R.(2d) 385 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 16].

MacKay et al. v. Manitoba, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 357; 99 N.R. 116; 61 Man.R.(2d) 270; [1989] 6 W.W.R. 351; 61 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 43 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 17].

Danson v. Ontario (Attorney General), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1086; 112 N.R. 362; 41 O.A.C. 250; 50 C.R.R. 59; 74 O.R.(2d) 763; 73 D.L.R.(4th) 686, refd to. [para. 17].

Seaway Trust Co. v. Ontario (1983), 41 O.R.(2d) 532 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Deutsch v. Law Society of Upper Canada Legal Aid Fund, Lawson and Legge (1985), 11 O.A.C. 30; 48 C.R.(3d) 166 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Morgentaler (1984), 6 O.A.C. 53; 48 O.R.(2d) 519 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Southam Inc. and Resnell v. Canada (At­torney General) et al. (1990), 114 N.R. 255; 73 D.L.R.(4th) 289 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Service Employees International Union, Local 204 v. Broadway Manor Nursing Home et al. (1984), 5 O.A.C. 371; 48 O.R.(2d) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Schafer et al. v. Canada (Attorney Gen­eral) et al. (1996), 135 D.L.R.(4th) 707 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 21].

Pitts v. Ontario (1985), 9 O.A.C. 205; 51 O.R.(2d) 302 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 41].

Warwick v. Ontario (Minister of Com­munity and Social Services) (1978), 21 O.R.(2d) 528 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

Masse et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Com­munity and Social Services) (1996), 89 O.A.C. 81 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 90].

Szmuilowicz v. Ontario (Minister of Health) (1995), 24 O.R.(3d) 204 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 92].

TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. v. Saskatchewan (Treasurer) (1968), 67 D.L.R.(2d) 694 (Sask. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 92].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Paulsen (1973), 38 D.L.R.(3d) 225 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask.R. 1; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 57; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 97; 66 C.R.(3d) 97; 55 D.L.R.(4th) 481, refd to. [para. 100].

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) 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. [para. 101].

R. v. Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1; 44 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 31 C.R.R. 1; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 62 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 101].

Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; 58 N.R. 1; 17 D.L.R.(4th) 422; 14 C.­R.R. 13; 12 Admin. L.R. 137, refd to. [para. 101].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général), [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. 102].

Schaff v. Canada, [1993] 18 C.R.R.(2d) 143 (Tax C.C.), refd to. [paras. 102, 117].

Brown v. British Columbia (Minister of Health) (1990), 66 D.L.R.(4th) 444 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 102].

Fernandes v. Director of Social Services (Winnipeg Central) (1992), 78 Man.R.(2d) 172; 16 W.A.C. 172; 7 Admin. L.R.(2d) 153 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 102].

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. 107].

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. [para. 107].

Symes v. Minister of National Revenue, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 695; 161 N.R. 243; [1994] 1 C.T.C. 40; 110 D.L.R.(4th) 470; 19 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 94 D.T.C. 6001, refd to. [para. 107].

Egan and Nesbit v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; 182 N.R. 161; 12 R.F.L.(4th) 201; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 609, refd to. [para. 107].

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; 24 C.R.(4th) 281, refd to. [para. 107].

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. [para. 108].

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. 108].

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. [para. 110].

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. [para. 111].

Haig et al. v. Canada; Haig et al. v. Kingsley, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 995; 156 N.R. 81; 105 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 16 C.R.R.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 111].

R. v. Rehberg (J.) (1993), 127 N.S.R.(2d) 331; 355 A.P.R. 331 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 115].

Moge v. Moge, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813; 145 N.R. 1; 81 Man.R.(2d) 161; 30 W.A.C. 161; [1993] 1 W.W.R. 481; 99 D.L.R.(4th) 456; 43 R.F.L.(3d) 345, refd to. [para. 115].

Dartmouth/Halifax County Regional Hous­ing Authority v. Sparks (1993), 119 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 330 A.P.R. 91 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 115].

McKinney v. University of Guelph et al. (1987), 24 O.A.C. 241; 63 O.R.(2d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 125].

Haig and Birch v. Canada et al. (1992), 57 O.A.C. 272; 9 O.R.(3d) 495 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 126].

Clark v. Peterborough Utilities et al. (1995), 24 O.R.(3d) 7 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 127].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [paras. 1, 188]; sect. 2(d) [para. 1]; sect. 7 [paras. 1, 99]; sect. 15 [paras. 1, 106]; sect. 24(1) [para. 3].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 52 [para. 7].

Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-43, sect. 19 [para. 21].

Family Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F-2, sect. 1, sect. 7 [para. 89]; sect. 12(a) [para. 4]; sect. 13(5) [para. 5]; sect. 14(2) [para. 6]; sect. 15 [para. 5]; sect. 20 [para. 89].

Family Benefits Act Regulations (Ont.), General Regulations, Reg. 366, sect. 1(1)(d), sect. 1(3), sect. 2(7)(b) [para. 1].

General Welfare Assistance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. G-6, sect. 1, sect. 7, sect. 14 [para. 88]; sect. 11 [para. 5].

General Welfare Assistance Act Regula­tions (Ont.), General Regulations, Reg. 537, sect. 1(1)(d), sect. 1(3), sect. 7(8) [para. 1].

Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. J-1, sect. 2(1), sect. 6(1) [para. 3].

Ministry of Community and Social Serv­ices Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M-20, sect. 14(6), sect. 15(1) [para. 5].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, National Council on Welfare Report, Women and Poverty Revisited (1990), p. 13 [para. 115].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (3rd Ed. 1992), vol. 2, pp. 56-1 [para. 22]; 56-18 [para. 9].

Leighton, Margaret, Handmaid's Tales: Family Benefits Assistance and the Single-Mother-Led Family (1987), University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review 324, generally [para. 38].

Martin, Dianne L., Passing the Buck: Prosecution of Welfare Fraud; Preserva­tion of Stereotypes, 12 Windsor Year­book of Access to Justice 52, gen­erally [para. 39].

Ontario, Hansard, Report of the Standing Committee on Government Agencies (February 7, 1996), generally [para. 77].

Ontario, Minister of Community and Social Services News Release, "Change to Ontario's Welfare System Ends 'Spouse in House' Rule", generally [para. 44].

Stapleton, John, Report on Social Assist­ance Programs in Ontario (April 1994), generally [para. 40].

Counsel:

Raj Anand, M. Kate Stephenson, Chantal Tie and Elizabeth J. Klassen, for the applicants;

Janet E. Minor, Lori Sterling and Sarah Kraicer, for the respondents;

Carissima Mathen and Martha Jackman, for the intervenor, Women's Legal Edu­cation and Action Fund;

Chris Paliare and Nina T.K. Moritsugu, for the intervenor, Canadian Civil Liberties Association;

Jeffery Wilson, for the intervenor, Cana­dian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law.

This application was heard on June 10-14, 1996, before Saunders, Ro­senberg and Borins, JJ., of the Ontario Divi­sional Court. The judgment of the court was released on Octo­ber 29, 1996, including the following opinions:

Borins, J. (Saunders, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 23;

Rosenberg, J., dissenting - see para­graphs 24 to 135.