Law v. MEI, (1999) 236 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Judge: Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ.
• Citation: (1999), 236 N.R. 1 (SCC),86 ACWS (3d) 1159,1999 CanLII 675 (SCC),43 CCEL (2d) 49,236 NR 1,[1999] 1 SCR 497,[1999] ACS no 12,AZ-50060907,170 DLR (4th) 1,60 CRR (2d) 1,[1999] SCJ No 12 (QL),JE 99-700
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Date: 20 January 1998

Law v. MEI (1999), 236 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: [1999] N.R. TBEd. MR.013

Nancy Law (appellant) v. Minister of Human Resources Development (respondent)

(25374)

Indexed As: Law v. Minister of Employment and Immigration

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé,

Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci,

Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ.

March 25, 1999.

Summary:

Law's husband died when she was 30 years old. Law's application for survivor's benefits under the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) was refused. Pursuant to s. 44(1)(d) of the CPP able-bodied surviving spouses without dependent children who were under 35 at the time of the death of the contributor were precluded from receiving a survivor's pen­sion until they reached the age of 65. Sec­tion 58 of the CPP reduced the survivor's pension for able-bodied surviving spouses without dependent children who were between the ages of 35 and 45 by 1/120th of the full rate for each month that the claim­ant's age was less than 45 years at the time of the contributor's death. Law appealed. She argued that ss. 44(1)(d) and 58 of the CPP violated her s. 15(1) Charter rights by dis­criminating against her because of her age. The Pension Appeals Board, in a deci­sion reported at (1995), C.E.B. & P.G.R. 8574, held that ss. 44(1)(d) and 58 did not violate Law's s. 15(1) rights. The majority also held that even if those provisions did violate Law's s. 15(1) rights, they were justified as a reasonable limit under s. 1 of the Charter. Law applied to set aside the Board's deci­sion.

The Federal Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 196 N.R. 73, dismissed the ap­pli­cation. The court substantially agreed with the reasons of the Pension Appeals Board. Law appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that ss. 44(1)(d) and 58 of the CPP did not violate s. 15(1) of the Charter.

Civil Rights - Topic 929

Discrimination - Government programs - On the basis of age - Pursuant to s. 44(1)(d) of the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) able-bodied surviving spouses without dependent children who were under 35 at the time of the death of the contributor were precluded from receiving a survivor's pension until they reached the age of 65 - Section 58 of the CPP reduced the survi­vor's pension for able-bodied surviving spouses without dependent children who were between the ages of 35 and 45 by 1/120th of the full rate for each month that the claimant's age was less than 45 years at the time of the contributor's death - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a purposive reading and application of s. 15(1) of the Charter resulted in the con­clusion that ss. 44(1)(d) and 58 of the CPP did not infringe s. 15(1) on the ground that they discriminated on the basis of age - See paragraph 113.

Civil Rights - Topic 5500

Equality and protection of the law - Gen­eral - The Supreme Court of Canada artic­ulated the basic principles relating to the purpose of s. 15(1) of the Charter and the proper approach to equality analysis - See paragraphs 21 to 87 - See paragraph 88 for a summary of the guidelines reviewed by the court.

Civil Rights - Topic 5500

Equality and protection of the law - Gen­eral - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "[i]t is inappropriate to attempt to confine analysis under s. 15(1) of the Charter to a fixed and limited formula. A purposive and contextual approach to discrimination analysis is to be preferred, in order to permit the realization of the strong remedial purpose of the equality guarantee, and to avoid the pitfalls of a formalistic or mechanical approach" - See paragraph 88.

Civil Rights - Topic 5500

Equality and protection of the law - Gen­eral - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "[t]he existence of a conflict between the purpose or effect of an impugned law and the purpose of s. 15(1) [of the Charter] is essential in order to found a discrimina­tion claim. The determination of whether such a conflict exists is to be made through an analysis of the full context surrounding the claim and the claimant" - See para­graph 88.

Civil Rights - Topic 5500

Equality and protection of the law - Gen­eral - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "[t]he equality guarantee is a compara­tive concept, which ultimately requires a court to establish one or more relevant comparators. The claimant generally chooses the person, group, or groups with whom he or she wishes to be compared for the purpose of the discrimination inquiry. However, where the claimant's characteriz­ation of the comparison is insufficient, a court may, within the scope of the ground or grounds pleaded, refine the comparison presented by the claimant where warranted. Locating the relevant comparison group requires an examination of the subject-matter of the legislation and its effects, as well as a full appreciation of context" - See paragraph 88.

Civil Rights - Topic 5502

Equality and protection of the law - Whether right to equality abridged - [See Civil Rights - Topic 929 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 5516

Equality and protection of the law - Tests for inequality - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "[t]he approach adopted and regularly applied by this court to the interpretation of s. 15(1) [of the Charter] focuses upon three central issues: (A) whether a law imposes differential treatment between the claimant and others, in purpose or effect; (B) whether one or more enumerated or analogous grounds of discrimination are the basis for the differ­ential treatment; and (C) whether the law in question has a purpose or effect that is discriminatory within the meaning of the equality guarantee. The first issue is con­cerned with the question of whether the law causes differential treatment. The second and third issues are concerned with whether the differential treatment consti­tutes discrimination in the substantive sense intended by s. 15(1)" - See para­graph 88.

Civil Rights - Topic 5516

Equality and protection of the law - Tests for inequality - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "a court that is called upon to determine a discrimination claim under s. 15(1) should make the following three broad inquiries: A. Does the impugned law (a) draw a formal dis­tinction between the claimant and others on the basis of one or more personal char­acteristics, or (b) fail to take into account the claimant's already disadvantaged posi­tion within Canadian society resulting in substantively differential treatment between the claimant and others on the basis of one or more personal characteristics? B. Is the claimant subject to differential treatment based on one or more enumerated and analogous grounds? and C. Does the differ­ential treatment discriminate, by imposing a burden upon or withholding a benefit from the claimant in a manner which reflects the stereotypical application of presumed group or personal characteristics, or which otherwise has the effect of per­petuating or promoting the view that the individual is less capable or worthy of recognition or value as a human being or as a member of Canadian society, equally deserving of concern, respect, and con­sideration?" - See paragraph 88.

Civil Rights - Topic 5516

Equality and protection of the law - Tests for inequality - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "[t]here are a variety of factors which may be referred to by a s. 15(1) [Charter] claimant in order to demonstrate that legislation demeans his or her dignity. The list of factors is not closed. Guidance as to these factors may be found in the jurisprudence of this court, and by analogy to recognized factors" - The court also stated that "[t]he contextual factors which determine whether legislation has the effect of demeaning a claimant's dignity must be construed and examined from the perspective of the claimant. The focus of the inquiry is both subjective and objective. The relevant point of view is that of the reasonable person, in circum­stances similar to those of the claimant, who takes into account the contextual factors relevant to the claim" - See para­graph 88.

Civil Rights - Topic 5516

Equality and protection of the law - Tests for inequality - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "[s]ome impor­tant contextual factors influencing the determination of whether s. 15(1) [of the Charter] has been infringed are, among others: (A) Pre-existing disadvantage, stereotyping, prejudice, or vulnerability experienced by the individual or group at issue ... (B) The correspondence, or lack thereof, between the ground or grounds on which the claim is based and the actual need, capacity, or circumstances of the claimant or others ... (C) The ameliorative purpose or effects of the impugned law upon a more disadvantaged person or group in society ... and (D) The nature and scope of the interest affected by the impugned law" - See paragraph 88.

Civil Rights - Topic 5658

Equality and protection of the law - Par­ticular cases - Pension legislation - [See Civil Rights - Topic 929 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8590

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Evidence - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "[a]lthough the s. 15(1) [Charter] claimant bears the onus of establishing an infringement of his or her equality rights in a purposive sense through reference to one or more contex­tual factors, it is not necessarily the case that the claimant must adduce evidence in order to show a violation of human dignity or freedom. Frequently, where differential treatment is based on one or more enumer­ated or analogous grounds, this will be sufficient to found an infringement of s. 15(1) in the sense that it will be evident on the basis of judicial notice and logical reasoning that the distinction is discrimina­tory within the meaning of the provision" -See paragraph 88.

Civil Rights - Topic 8663

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Equality rights - Purpose of s. 15 - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "[i]n general terms, the purpose of s. 15(1) is to prevent the violation of essential human dignity and freedom through the imposition of disadvantage, stereotyping, or political or social prejudice, and to promote a society in which all persons enjoy equal recognition at law as human beings or as members of Canadian society, equally capable and equally deserving of concern, respect and consideration" - See paragraph 88.

Evidence - Topic 2205

Special modes of proof - Judicial notice - General principles - Constitutional cases - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8590 ].

Government Programs - Topic 1222

Canada Pension Plan - Entitlement - Survi­vor's benefits - [See Civil Rights - Topic 929 ].

Cases Noticed:

Andrews v. Law Society of British Colum­bia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255; [1989] 2 W.W.R. 289; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 34 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 36 C.R.R. 193; 25 C.C.E.L. 255, consd. [para. 2].

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, consd. [para. 3].

R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; 125 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 81; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 481, consd. [para. 3].

McKinney v. University of Guelph et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 229; 118 N.R. 1; 45 O.A.C. 1; 76 D.L.R.(4th) 545; 2 C.R.R.(2d) 1, consd. [para. 16].

R. v. Hess; R. v. Nguyen, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 906; 119 N.R. 353; 46 O.A.C. 13; 73 Man.R.(2d) 1; 3 W.A.C. 1, consd. [para. 31].

Tétreault-Gadoury v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 22; 126 N.R. 1; 81 D.L.R.(4th) 358, consd. [para. 31].

Symes v. Minister of National Revenue, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 695; 161 N.R. 243; 110 D.L.R.(4th) 470, consd. [para. 31].

Egan and Nesbitt v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; 182 N.R. 161; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 609, consd. [para. 31].

Miron and Valliere v. Trudel et al., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 418; 181 N.R. 253; 81 O.A.C. 253, consd. [para. 31].

Thibaudeau v. Minister of National Rev­enue, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 627; 182 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 31].

Benner v. Canada (Secretary of State), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 358; 208 N.R. 81, consd. [para. 31].

Eaton v. Board of Education of Brant County, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 241; 207 N.R. 171; 97 O.A.C. 161, consd. [para. 31].

Eldridge 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, consd. [para. 31].

Vriend et al. v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; 224 N.R. 1; 212 A.R. 237; 168 W.A.C. 237, consd. [para. 31].

Weatherall v. Canada (Attorney General) - see Conway v. Canada.

Conway v. Canada, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 872; 154 N.R. 392, consd. [para. 38].

Haig et al. v. Canada; Haig et al. v. Kings­ley, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 995; 156 N.R. 81, consd. [para. 38].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 27 B.L.R. 297; 84 D.T.C. 6467; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 40].

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. 14,203; 13 C.R.R. 64, refd to. [para. 40].

Kask v. Shimizu et al., [1986] 4 W.W.R. 154; 69 A.R. 343 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 43].

Rodriquez 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. 53].

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. 69].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 19 C.R.R. 308, refd to. [para. 81].

R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 81].

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

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

Lefebvre v. HOJ Industries Ltd.; Machtinger v. HOJ Industries Ltd., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 986; 136 N.R. 40; 53 Q.A.C. 200, refd to. [para. 101].

Moge v. Moge, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813; 145 N.R. 1; 81 Man.R.(2d) 161; 30 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 101].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-8, sect. 44(1)(d), sect. 58(1) [para. 14].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 15(1) [para. 14].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debate, vol. 6, 2nd sess., 26 Parl. (August 10, 1964), p. 6636 [para. 8].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debate, vol. 9, 2nd sess., 26 Parl. (Nov­ember 16, 1964), p. 10122 [para. 97].

Hansard - see Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debate.

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, Alan W., Law of Evidence in Canada (1992), p. 976 [para. 77].

Counsel:

James Sayre, for the appellant;

Susan L. Van Der Hout, Virginia McRae and Julie Lalonde-Goldenberg, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Community Legal Assistance Society, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellant;

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard January 20, 1998, before, Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The following judgment of the court was delivered in both official languages by Iacobucci, J., on March 25, 1999.