Hislop v. Can. (A.G.), (2004) 192 O.A.C. 331 (CA)

• Judge: Charron, Feldman and Lang, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: November 26, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2004), 192 O.A.C. 331 (CA)

Hislop v. Can. (A.G.) (2004), 192 O.A.C. 331 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] O.A.C. TBEd. DE.054

George Hislop, Brent E. Daum, Albert McNutt, Eric Brogaard and Gail Meredith (plaintiffs/respondents) v. The Attorney General of Canada (defendant/appellant) and The Attorney General of Ontario (intervenor)

(C41224)

Indexed As: Hislop et al. v. Canada (Attorney General)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Charron, Feldman and Lang, JJ.A.

November 26, 2004.

Summary:

Amendments to the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) in 2000 extended survivor benefits to same-sex partners by amending the definition of "spouse" to conform with the equality rights provisions of s. 15(1) of the Charter. However, eligibility was limited to same-sex partners whose "spouse" died on or after January 1, 1998, and benefits were not retroactive to April 17, 1985 (when Charter in force) or the date of death of the "spouse", whichever occurred later (ss. 44(1.1) and 72(2)). Further, s. 60(2) of the CPP, which limited the estate of any surviving spouse to 12 months' benefits and s. 72(1), which limited the payment of pension arrears to the 12 month period preceding the application, were not amended by the 2000 amendments. A class action was commenced by same-sex survivors, challenging the four sections as violating their equality rights under s. 15(1) of the Charter.

The Ontario Superior Court, in a judgment reported [2003] O.T.C. 1111, held that ss. 44(1.1) and 72(2) violated s. 15(1) of the Charter and were declared invalid. Same-sex survivors were granted a constitutional exemption from ss. 60(2) and 72(1). Survivors were entitled to benefits retroactive to the later of the date of death of their partner and April 17, 1985, with interest. The federal Attorney General appealed the declaration of invalidity, the constitutional exemption and the award of interest on the retroactive benefits. The provincial Attorney General intervened on the issue of retroactivity of benefits beyond the date the amending legislation came into force (2000).

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. The court affirmed that ss. 44(1.1) and 72(2) violated equality rights contrary to s. 15(1) of the Charter and were not saved under s. 1. Sections 60(2) and 72(1) were not contrary to s. 15(1). Sections 44(1.1) and 72(2) were appropriately struck down, leaving a same-sex surviving spouse entitled to survivor benefits subject only to the 12 month cap on arrears and the limitation on estate claims (as were all benefits claimants). There was no basis for a s. 24(1) remedy or a constitutional exemption under s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act.

Civil Rights - Topic 953

Discrimination - Sexual orientation - Homosexuals (incl. same-sex couples) - Amendments to the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) in 2000 extended survivor benefits to same-sex partners by amending the definition of "spouse" to conform with the equality rights provisions of s. 15(1) of the Charter - However, ss. 44(1.1) and 72(2) of the CPP, which applied only to same-sex survivors, limited the remedial effect by excluding from eligibility those survivors whose partner died before January 1, 1998, and making benefits payable only from the date the legislation was in force (2000) - Sections 60(2) and 72(1), which predated the amendments and applied to all spouses, limited the claims of estates to 12 months from the date of death of the contributing partner and limited the claims of surviving spouses to 12 months of arrears from the date of application for benefits - The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed that ss. 44(1.1) and 72(2) violated s. 15(1) of the Charter and were not a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 - Sections 60(2) and 72(1) were not contrary to s. 15(1) - Sections 44(1.1) and 72(2) were appropriately struck down, leaving a same-sex surviving spouse entitled to survivor benefits subject only to the 12 month cap on arrears and the limitation on estate claims - There was no basis for a s. 24(1) remedy or a constitutional exemption under s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act.

Civil Rights - Topic 5658

Equality and protection of the law - Particular cases - Pension legislation - [See Civil Rights - Topic 953 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (Charter, s. 1) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 953 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.8

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Statute deemed inapplicable (incl. doctrine of constitutional exemption) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 953 ].

Government Programs - Topic 1222

Canada Pension Plan - Entitlement - Survivor's benefits - [See Civil Rights - Topic 953 ].

Cases Noticed:

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

Egan and Nesbit v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; 182 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 25].

Benner v. Canada (Secretary of State), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 358; 208 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 37].

Law v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497; 236 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 39].

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. 49].

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. 49].

Sauvé v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer) et al., [2002] 3 S.C.R. 519; 294 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Hall (D.S.), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 309; 293 N.R. 239; 165 O.A.C. 319, refd to. [para. 50].

Halpern et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2003), 172 O.A.C. 276; 65 O.R.(3d) 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

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

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. [para. 54].

Granovsky v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 703; 253 N.R. 329, refd to. [para. 58].

Hodge v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) (2004), 326 N.R. 201; 2004 SCC 65, refd to. [para. 58].

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. [para. 82].

Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v. Newfoundland Association of Public Employees (2004), 326 N.R. 25; 242 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 113; 719 A.P.R. 113; 2004 SCC 66, refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [para. 94].

Stinson Estate v. British Columbia et al. (1999), 133 B.C.A.C. 15; 217 W.A.C. 15; 70 B.C.L.R.(3d) 233 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2000), 264 N.R. 394; 152 B.C.A.C. 319; 250 W.A.C. 319 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 103].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161, refd to. [para. 108].

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. [para. 108].

Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 117].

Eurig Estate v. Ontario Court (General Division), Registrar, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 565; 213 N.R. 55; 114 O.A.C. 55, dist. [para. 122].

R. v. Parker (T.) (2000), 135 O.A.C. 1; 49 O.R.(3d) 481 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 123].

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. [para. 124].

Doucet-Boudreau et al. v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education) et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 3; 312 N.R. 1; 218 N.S.R.(2d) 311; 687 A.P.R. 311, refd to. [para. 131].

R. v. Demers (R.) (2004), 323 N.R. 201; 185 C.C.C.(3d) 257 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 136].

Guimond v. Québec (Procureur général), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 347; 201 N.R. 380, refd to. [para. 140].

Graham et al. v. Rourke (1990), 40 O.A.C. 301; 75 O.R.(2d) 622 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 145].

Irvington Holdings Ltd. v. Black et al. (1987), 20 O.A.C. 390; 58 O.R.(2d) 449 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 145].

Somers v. Fournier et al. (2002), 162 O.A.C. 1; 60 O.R.(3d) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 145].

Giguère v. Chambre des notaires du Québec, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 3; 315 N.R. 346, refd to. [para. 145].

Mason v. Peters (1982), 39 O.R.(2d) 449 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1982), 46 N.R. 538 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 148].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-8, sect. 44(1.1) [para. 11]; sect. 60(2), 72(1) [para. 12]; sect. 72(2) [para. 11].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Roach and Choudhry, Putting the Past Behind Us? Prospective Judicial and Legislative Constitutional Remedies (2003), 21 S.C.L.R.(2d) 205, pp. 242, 243 [para. 85].

Counsel:

R. Douglas Elliott, David F. O'Connor, R. Trent Morris, Victoria A. Paris, Kenneth W. Smith and Sharon Matthews, for the plaintiffs/respondents;

Paul B. Vickery, Debra M. McAllister and Monika Lozinska, for the defendant/appellant;

Daniel Guttman and Mark Crow, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Ontario.

This appeal was heard on June 10-11, 2004, before Charron, Feldman and Lang, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The following judgment was released by the Court on November 26, 2004.