Gosselin v. Québec (Procureur général), (2002) 298 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 19, 2002
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2002), 298 N.R. 1 (SCC);2002 SCC 84

Gosselin v. Que. (P.g.) (2002), 298 N.R. 1 (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: [2002] N.R. TBEd. DE.035

Louise Gosselin (appelante) v. Le procureur général du Québec (intimé) et le procureur général de l'Ontario, le procureur général du Nouveau-Brunswick, le procureur général de la Colombie-Britannique, le procureur général de l'Alberta, Droits et Démocratie (aussi appelé le Centre international des droits de la personne et du développement démocratique), la Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, l'Association nationale de la femme et du droit (ANFD), le Comité de la Charte et des questions de pauvreté (CCQP) et l'Association canadienne des commissions et conseil des droits de la personne (ACCCDP) (intervenants)

(27418; 2002 SCC 84; 2002 CSC 84)

Indexed As: Gosselin v. Québec (Procureur général)

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.

December 19, 2002.

Summary:

Section 29(a) of the Regulation Respecting Social Aid, adopted under the Social Aid Act, imposed a cap on the base amount payable to welfare recipients under the age of 30 at roughly one-third of the base amount payable to those aged 30 and over. However, recipients under age 30 could increase their payments to an amount com­parable to those aged 30 and over while participating in a designated work activity or education program. This scheme was replaced in 1989 by legislation that did not make age-based distinctions. Gosselin com­menced a class action on behalf of all wel­fare recipients who were under the age of 30 between 1985 and 1989 and received the lower amount. Gosselin claimed that the scheme violated ss. 7 and 15(1) of the Cana­dian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and s. 45 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. She sought a declaration that s. 29(a) had been invalid and an order that Quebec reimburse all affected recipients.

The Quebec Superior Court, in a decision reported at [1992] R.J.Q. 1647, dismissed the action. Gosselin appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, Robert, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported at [1999] R.J.Q. 1033, dismissed the appeal. Gosselin appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, L'Heureux-Dubé, Bastarache, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 929

Discrimination - Government programs - On the basis of age - Section 29(a) of the Regulation Respecting Social Aid imposed a cap on the base amount payable to wel­fare recipients under the age of 30 at roughly one-third of the base amount payable to those aged 30 and over - How­ever, recipients under age 30 could increase their payments to an amount comparable to those aged 30 and over while participating in a designated work activity or education program - Gosselin argued that this scheme discriminated against her on the basis of age, contrary to s. 15(1) of the Charter - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the scheme did not violate s. 15(1) - Although the scheme made a distinction on the basis of age, Gosselin failed to prove that the scheme in purpose or effect denied human dignity to people under age 30, or penalized or marginalized them simply for being who they were - The scheme was directed at addressing the particular short-term and long-term needs and circumstances of young adults by integrating them into the work force and promoting long-term self-sufficiency - See paragraphs 16 to 74.

Civil Rights - Topic 1204

Security of the person - General - Right to social assistance - Section 29(a) of the Regulation Respecting Social Aid imposed a cap on the base amount payable to wel­fare recipients under the age of 30 at roughly one-third of the base amount payable to those aged 30 and over - How­ever, recipients under age 30 could increase their payments to an amount comparable to those aged 30 and over while participating in a designated work activity or education program - Gosselin argued that this scheme violated s. 7 of the Charter - In particular, she argued that the right to security of the person included the right to receive a particular level of social assistance from the state adequate to meet basic needs - The Supreme Court of Canada held that there was no breach of s. 7 - The court noted that nothing in the jurisprudence thus far suggested that s. 7 placed a positive obligation on the state to ensure that each person enjoys life, liberty or security of the person - Rather, s. 7 had been interpreted as restricting the state's ability to deprive people of these - The court held that the present circumstances did not warrant "a novel application of s. 7 as the basis for a positive state obligation to guarantee adequate living standards" - "The frail platform provided by the facts of this case cannot support the weight of a positive state obligation of citizen support" - See paragraphs 75 to 84.

Civil Rights - Topic 5516

Equality and protection of the law - Tests for inequality - General - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the test for a violation of s. 15(1) of the Charter - See paragraphs 16 to 27.

Civil Rights - Topic 5648

Equality and protection of the law - Par­ticular cases - Social assistance legislation or practices - Gosselin claimed that a government welfare scheme that differenti­ated between people 30 years old and above and people under age 30 was dis­criminatory and, therefore, violated s. 15(1) of the Charter - The Supreme Court of Canada stated, inter alia, that perfect correspondence between a benefit program and the actual needs and circumstances of the claimant group was not required to find that a challenged provision did not violate the Charter - "The inability of a given social program to meet the needs of each and every individual does not permit us to conclude that the program failed to corre­spond to the actual needs and circum­stances of the affected group ... The fact that some people may fall through a pro­gram's cracks does not show that the law fails to consider the overall needs and circumstances of the group of individuals affected, or that distinctions contained in the law amount to discrimination in the substantive sense intended by s. 15(1)." - See paragraph 55.

Civil Rights - Topic 5648

Equality and protection of the law - Par­ticular cases - Social assistance legislation or practices - Gosselin claimed that a government welfare scheme that differenti­ated between people 30 years old and above and people under age 30 was dis­criminatory and, therefore, violated s. 15(1) of the Charter - The Supreme Court of Canada stated, inter alia, "we cannot infer disparity between the purpose and effect of the scheme and the situation of those affected, from the mere failure of the government to prove that the assumptions upon which it proceeded were correct. ... The legislator is entitled to proceed on informed general assumptions without running afoul of s. 15 ... provided these assumptions are not based on arbitrary and demeaning stereotypes." - See paragraph 56.

Civil Rights - Topic 5648

Equality and protection of the law - Par­ticular cases - Social assistance legislation or practices - [See Civil Rights - Topic 929 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7135

Federal or provincial legislation - Particu­lar rights - Social assistance - Section 45 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms provided that every person in need has a right to "measures of finan­cial assistance and to social measures provided for by law, susceptible of ensur­ing such person an acceptable standard of living" - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 45 required the government to provide social assistance measures, but the adequacy of a those measures was not subject to judicial review - "Rather than speaking of a right to an adequate standard of living, s. 45 refers to a right to measures . Moreover, the right is not to measures that ensure an adequate standard of living, but to measures that are suscep­tible of ensuring an adequate standard of living. In my view, the choice of the term 'susceptible' underscores the idea that the measures adopted must be oriented toward the goal of ensuring an adequate standard of living, but are not required to achieve success." - See paragraphs 85 to 94.

Civil Rights - Topic 7135

Federal or provincial legislation - Particu­lar rights - Social assistance - Section 45 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms provided that every person in need has a right to "measures of finan­cial assistance and to social measures provided for by law, susceptible of ensur­ing such person an acceptable standard of living" - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a breach of s. 45 could not give rise to a declaration of invalidity because that remedy was only available under s. 52 which applied exclusively to ss. 1 to 38 - Further, s. 49 (cessation and compensation) did not apply - However, while it was true that courts lacked the power to strike down laws that were inconsistent with the social and economic rights provided by Chapter IV of the Quebec Charter, it did not follow that courts were excused from considering claims based upon those rights - The rem­edy for breaches of the social and econ­omic rights in Chapter IV of the Quebec Charter was to have a court of competent jurisdiction declare that the rights were violated - See paragraphs 95 and 96.

Civil Rights - Topic 7181

Federal or provincial legislation - Rem­edies - General - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 7135 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7185

Federal or provincial legislation - Rem­edies - Damages - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 7135 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7186

Federal or provincial legislation - Rem­edies - Judicial review - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 7135 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7187

Federal or provincial legislation - Rem­edies - Declaration of statute invalidity - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 7135 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8546

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Particular words and phrases - Life, liberty and security of the person - Bastarache, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada opined that s. 7 of the Charter applied only in an adjudicative context - See paragraphs 205 to 223 - McLachlin, C.J.C. (Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major and Binnie, JJ., concurring), stated that "I believe that this conclusion may be premature. An adjudicative context might be sufficient, but we have not yet deter­mined that one is necessary in order for s. 7 to be implicated." - The question whether s. 7 applied to protect rights or interests wholly unconnected with the administration of justice remained unan­swered - See paragraphs 77 to 80.

Civil Rights - Topic 8546

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Particular words and phrases - Life, liberty and security of the person - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1204 ].

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 929 and first and second Civil Rights - Topic 5648 ].

Social Assistance - Topic 841

Claims - Benefits - Entitlement - General -[See Civil Rights - Topic 1204 and first Civil Rights - Topic 7135 ].

Social Assistance - Topic 847.1

Claims - Benefits - Entitlement - Qualifica­tions based on age - [See Civil Rights - Topic 929 ].

Cases Noticed:

Law v. Minister of Employment and Im­migration, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497; 236 N.R. 1, appld. [paras. 11, 105, 178, 404].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Colum­bia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255, refd to. [paras. 18, 105].

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. [paras. 21, 105, 227].

Ardoch Algonquin First Nation and Allies et al. v. Ontario et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 950; 255 N.R. 1; 134 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [paras. 21, 123, 237].

Lovelace v. Ontario - see Ardoch Algonquin First Nation and Allies et al. v. Ontario et al.

Public Service Employee Relations Com­mission (B.C.) v. British Columbia Gov­ernment and Service Employees' Union, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3; 244 N.R. 145; 127 B.C.A.C. 161; 207 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [paras. 22, 120, 242].

Eaton v. Board of Education of Brant County, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 241; 207 N.R. 171; 97 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 23].

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. [paras. 23, 120, 248].

Vriend et al. v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; 224 N.R. 1; 212 A.R. 237; 168 W.A.C. 237, refd to. [paras. 23, 228, 316].

Granovsky v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 703; 253 N.R. 329, refd to. [paras. 23, 123].

Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Centre Inc. (1985), 473 U.S. 432, refd to. [para. 24].

Egan and Nesbit v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; 182 N.R. 161, refd to. [paras. 63, 110, 228].

New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. J.G. and D.V., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46; 244 N.R. 276; 216 N.B.R.(2d) 25; 552 A.P.R. 25, refd to. [paras. 77, 144, 207, 324].

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. [paras. 77, 210, 314].

Sheena B., Re, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315; 176 N.R. 161; 78 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 77].

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

Blencoe v. Human Rights Commission (B.C.) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307; 260 N.R. 1; 141 B.C.A.C. 161; 231 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [paras. 77, 211, 315].

Child and Family Services of Winnipeg Northwest v. D.F.G., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 925; 219 N.R. 241; 121 Man.R.(2d) 241; 158 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [paras. 78, 212, 315].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 80, 206].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur gén­éral), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2, refd to. [paras. 80, 311].

Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General), [1930] A.C. 124 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 82].

Reference Re Provincial Electoral Bound­aries (Sask), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158; 127 N.R. 1; 94 Sask.R. 161, refd to. [paras. 82, 317].

Miron and Valliere v. Trudel et al., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 418; 181 N.R. 253; 81 O.A.C. 253, refd to. [paras. 106, 228].

McKinney v. University of Guelph et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 229; 118 N.R. 1; 45 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 109].

Harrison v. University of British Colum­bia; Connell v. University of British Columbia, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 451; 120 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 109].

Stoffman et al. v. Vancouver General Hospital et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 483; 118 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 109].

Tétreault-Gadoury v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 22; 126 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 109, 199].

Dunmore et al. v. Ontario (Attorney Gen­eral) et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 1016; 279 N.R. 201; 154 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [paras. 111, 202, 320].

Human Rights Commission (Ont.) and O'Malley v. Simpsons-Sears Ltd., [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536; 64 N.R. 161; 12 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 112].

Action Travail des Femmes v. Canadian National Railway Co. et al., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1114; 76 N.R. 161, refd to. [paras. 112, 248].

Canadian National Railway Co. v. Cana­dian Human Rights Commission - see Action Travail des Femmes v. Canadian National Railway Co. et al.

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, refd to. [para. 112].

Lavoie et al. v. Canada et al. (2002), 284 N.R. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 112, 234].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [paras. 113, 184, 260, 352].

Winko v. Forensic Psychiatric Institute (B.C.) et al., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625; 241 N.R. 1; 124 B.C.A.C. 1; 203 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 123].

Mahe, Martel, Dubé and Association d'Ecole Georges et Julia Bugnet v. Alberta, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 342; 105 N.R. 321; 106 A.R. 321, refd to. [para. 141].

Reference Re Public Schools Act (Man.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 839; 149 N.R. 241; 83 Man.R.(2d) 241; 36 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 141].

Sauvé v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer) et al. (2002), 294 N.R. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 143, 244].

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 144].

R. v. Tran (Q.D.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 951; 170 N.R. 81; 133 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 380 A.P.R. 81, refd to. [para. 144].

Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 189, 320].

Guimond v. Québec (Procureur général), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 347; 201 N.R. 380, refd to. [para. 189].

Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Association v. Douglas College, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 570; 118 N.R. 340, refd to. [para. 199].

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, refd to. [para. 199].

Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 200].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266, refd to. [paras. 215, 316].

Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2002), 281 N.R. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 216].

Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313; 74 N.R. 99; 78 A.R. 1, refd to. [para. 220].

Reference Re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.) - see Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration.

Delisle v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 989; 244 N.R. 33, refd to. [para. 221].

Haig et al. v. Canada; Haig et al. v. Kingsley, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 995; 156 N.R. 81, refd to. [paras. 221, 359].

Western Canadian Shopping Centres Inc. et al. v. Dutton et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 534; 272 N.R. 135; 286 A.R. 201; 253 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 249].

R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239, refd to. [para. 259].

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

Thomson Newspapers Co. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 877; 226 N.R. 1; 109 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 261].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161, refd to. [paras. 263, 316].

St-Jacques v. Fédération des employées et employés de services publics Inc. (C.S.N.) et al., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 345; 198 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 303].

Béliveau St-Jacques v. Fédération des employées et employés de services pub­lics inc. - see St-Jacques v. Fédération des employées et employés de services public Inc. (C.S.N.) et al.

Québec (Curateur public) v. Syndicat national des employés de l'Hopital St.-Ferdinand et autres, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 211; 202 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 303].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [para. 316].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122, refd to. [para. 316].

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; 106 N.R. 161; 39 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 316].

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. 316].

R. v. R.J.S., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 451; 177 N.R. 81; 78 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 316].

Operation Dismantle Inc. et al. v. Canada et al., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441; 59 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 338].

Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217; 228 N.R. 203, refd to. [para. 349].

Quebec Association of Protestant School Boards et al. v. Quebec (Attorney Gen­eral) et al., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 66; 54 N.R. 196, refd to. [para. 353].

Alberta (Attorney General) v. Plantation Indoor Plants Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 366; 58 N.R. 228; 60 A.R. 343, refd to. [para. 354].

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. 354].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick (Attorney General), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 480; 203 N.R. 169; 182 N.B.R.(2d) 81; 463 A.P.R. 81, refd to. [para. 354].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 354].

R. v. Mills (B.J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668; 248 N.R. 101; 244 A.R. 201; 209 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 354].

R. v. McClure (D.E.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 445; 266 N.R. 275; 142 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 354].

Jones v. Smith, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 455; 236 N.R. 201; 120 B.C.A.C. 161; 196 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 354].

Native Women's Association of Canada et al. v. Canada et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 627; 173 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 366].

Lévesque v. Québec (Procureur général), Commission des affaires sociales et autres, [1988] R.J.Q. 223; 10 Q.A.C. 212 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 424].

Lecours v. Québec (Ministère de la Main d'oeuvre et de la sécurité du revenu), J.E. 90-638 (Qué. S.C.), refd to. [para. 425].

Johnson v. Commission des affaires so­ciales, [1984] C.A. 61, refd to. [para. 426].

Commission des droits de la personne du Québec et autres v. Commission scolaire St-Jean-sur-Richelieu, [1991] R.J.Q. 3003 (T.D.P.Q.), affd. [1994] R.J.Q. 1227; 64 Q.A.C. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 429].

Desroches v. Commission des droits de la personne, [1997] R.J.Q. 1540 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 430].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 351]; sect. 15(1) [paras. 16, 224]; sect. 7 [paras. 75, 205, 336].

Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q., c. C-12, sect. 45 [paras. 85, 300, 415].

Regulation Respecting Social Aid - see Social Aid Act Regulations (Que.).

Social Aid Act Regulations (Que.), Regu­lation Respecting Social Aid, R.R.Q. 1981, c. A-16, rule 1, sect. 29(a) [paras. 6, 171].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ascah, Louis, La discrimination contre les moins de trente ans à l'aide sociale du Québec: un regard économique (1988), generally [para. 405].

Bosset, Pierre, Les droits économiques et sociaux: parents pauvres de la Charte québécoise? (1996), 76 Can. Bar Rev. 583, pp. 585 [para. 417]; 593 [para. 428]; 602 [para. 431].

Bredt, Christopher D., and Dodek, Adam M., The Increasing Irrelevance of Section 1 of the Charter (2001), 14 Sup. Ct. L. Rev.(2d) 175, p. 182 [para. 244].

Carignan, Pierre, L'égalité dans le droit: une méthode d'approche appliquée à l'article 10 de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, in De la Charte québécoise de droits et libertés: origine, nature et défis (1989), 101, pp. 136, 137 [para. 430].

Fortin, P., Les mesures d'employabilité à l'aide sociale: origine, signification et portée (1990), generally [para. 248].

Fortin, Pierre, Le chomâge des jeunes au Québec: aggravation et concentration (1966-1982) (1984), 39 Relations Indus­trielles 419, generally [para. 409].

Greschner, Donna, The Purpose of Cana­dian Equality Rights (2000), 6 Review of Constitutional Studies 291, generally [para. 22].

Guérin, Gilles, Les jeunes et le marché du travail (1986), p. 65 [para. 407].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (4th Ed. 1997) (2001 Looseleaf Update - Release 1), vol. 2, pp. 44-3 [para. 338]; 44-6 [para. 345]; 44-9 [para. 215]; 44-12.1 [paras. 313, 330]; 52-27 [para. 244]; 52-47 [para. 108]; 52-54 [paras. 32, 225].

Lafond, Pierre-Claude, Le recours collectif comme voie d'accès à la justice pour les consommateurs (1996), pp. 400, 405, 406 [para. 249].

Longtin, Marie-José, and Jacoby, Daniel, La Charte vue sous l'angle du législateur, in La nouvelle Charte sur les droits et libertés de la personne (1977), 4, p. 24 [para. 421].

Poithier, D., The Sounds of Silence: Char­ter Application when the Legislature Declines to Speak (1996), 7 Constitu­tional Forum 113, p. 115 [para. 362].

Poulin Simon, Lise, and Bellemare, Diane, Le plein emploi: pourquoi? (1983), p. 66 [para. 408].

Quebec, Minister of Manpower and Income Security, Policy Paper, Pour une politique de sécurité du revenu (1987), generally [para. 384].

Quebec, National Assembly, Journal des Débats, 2e Sess., 30e leg., vol. 15, no. 79 (12 November 1974), p. 2744 [para. 422].

United Nations, Economic and Social Council, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Report on the Fifth Session (November 26 - December 14, 1990) (1991), Supplement No. 3, para. 10 [para. 147].

Weinrib, Lorraine Eisenstat, The Supreme Court of Canada and Section One of the Charter (1988), 10 Sup. Ct. L. Rev. 469, p. 483 [para. 353].

Counsel:

Carmen Palardy, Georges Massol and Stéphanie Bernstein, for the appellant;

André Fauteux and Isabelle Harnois, for the respondent;

Janet E. Minor and Peter Landmann, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Ontario;

Gabriel Bourgeois, Q.C., for the intervener, the Attorney General for New Brunswick;

Sarah Macdonald, for the intervener, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Margaret Unsworth, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Alberta;

David Matas, for the intervener, Rights and Democracy (also known as International Centre for Human Rights and Demo­cratic Development);

Hélène Tessier, for the intervener, Com­mission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse;

Gwen Brodsky and Rachel Cox, for the intervener, the National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL);

Vincent Calderhead and Martha Jackman, for the intervener, the Charter Committee on Poverty Issues (CCPI);

Chantal Masse and Fred Headon, for the intervener, the Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies (CASHRA).

Solicitors of Record:

Ouellet, Nadon, Barabé, Cyr, de Merchant, Bernstein, Cousineau, Heap & Palardy, Montréal, Quebec, for the appellant;

Department of Justice, Montréal and Sainte-Foy, Quebec, for the respondent;

Department of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Ontario;

Attorney General for New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick, for the intervener, the Attorney General for New Brunswick;

Department of the Attorney General, Vic­toria, British Columbia, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Brit­ish Columbia;

Alberta Justice, Edmonton, Alberta, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Alberta;

David Matas, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the intervener, Rights and Democracy (also known as International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development);

Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, Montréal, Que­bec, for the intervener, Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse;

Gwen Brodsky, Vancouver, British Colum­bia, and Rachel Cox, St-Lazare, Quebec, for the intervener, the National Associ­ation of Women and the Law (NAWL);

Nova Scotia Legal Aid, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the intervener, the Charter Committee on Poverty Issues (CCPI);

McCarthy Tétrault, Montréal, Quebec, for the intervener, the Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies (CASHRA).

This appeal was heard on October 29, 2001, before McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bas­tarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official lan­guages on December 19, 2002, when the following opinions were filed:

McLachlin, C.J.C. (Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major and Binnie, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 97;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 98 to 149;

Bastarache, J., dissenting - see para­graphs 150 to 306;

Arbour, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 307 to 400;

LeBel, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 401 to 434.