Vriend et al. v. Alberta, (1998) 224 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major and Bastarache, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court of Canada
• Case Date: Thursday April 02, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1998), 224 N.R. 1 (SCC);[1998] ACS no 29;[1998] 1 SCR 493;JE 98-847;[1999] 5 WWR 451;156 DLR (4th) 385;224 NR 1;1998 CanLII 816 (SCC);212 AR 237;31 CHRR 1;[1998] SCJ No 29 (QL);168 WAC 237;50 CRR (2d) 1;67 Alta LR (3d) 1

Vriend v. Alta. (1998), 224 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: [1998] N.R. TBEd. AP.001

Delwin Vriend and Gala-Gay and Lesbian Awareness Society of Edmonton and Gay and Lesbian Community Centre of Edmonton Society and Dignity Canada Dignité for Gay Catholics and Supporters (appellants) v. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Alberta and Her Majesty's Attorney General in and for the Province of Alberta (respondents) and The Attorney General of Canada, The Attorney General for Ontario, The Alberta Civil Liberties Association, Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere (EGALE), The Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF), The Foundation for Equal Families, The Canadian Human Rights Commission, The Canadian Labour Congress, The Canadian Bar Association - Alberta Branch, The Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies (CASHRA), The Canadian AIDS Society, The Alberta and Northwest Conference of the United Church of Canada, The Canadian Jewish Congress, The Christian Legal Fellowship, The Alberta Federation of Women United for Families, The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and Focus on the Family (Canada) Association (intervenors)

(25285)

Indexed As: Vriend et al. v. Alberta

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major and Bastarache, JJ.

April 2, 1998.

Summary:

Vriend was dismissed from employment at King's College because he was a homosex­ual. His complaint to the Alberta Human Rights Commission was rejected on the ground that "sexual orientation" was not a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Alberta Individual's Rights Protection Act. Vriend et al. applied for a declar­ation that ss. 2(1), 3, 4, 7(1), 8(1) and 10 of the Act, by being underinclusive, violated s. 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Free­doms.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a judgment reported 152 A.R. 1, declared that the challenged sections violated equality rights under the Charter and were not rea­sonable limits prescribed by law under s. 1 of the Charter. The appropriate remedy was to interpret, apply and administer the sec­tions as though they contained the words "sexual orientation" (i.e., reading in). The province appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, Hunt, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported 181 A.R. 16; 116 W.A.C. 16, allowed the appeal. McClung, J.A., held that the deliberate omission of "sexual orientation" did not invoke s. 15(1), because there was no gov­ernmental action as required by s. 32(1) of the Charter. Alter­natively, the challenged sections did not violate s. 15(1) because there was no dis­criminatory distinction. O'Leary, J.A., assumed that the requirements of s. 32(1) were met, mak­ing the challenged sections subject to s. 15(1) scrutiny, and held that the sections did not create a distinction based on sexual orienta­tion and, accordingly, did not violate s. 15(1). Hunt, J.A., dissent­ing, held that the requirements of s. 32(1) were met, s. 15(1) was invoked and s. 15(1) was violated. The refusal to act reinforced stereotypical atti­tudes about homosexuals. Legislative silence drew a discriminatory distinction for the purposes of s. 15(1). The court unani­mously agreed that if the sections violated s. 15(1) that "reading up" or "read­ing in" was not an appropriate remedy; that the appro­priate remedy would be to declare the of­fending sections invalid and suspend the declaration for one year to permit the Alberta legislature to remedy the problem. Vriend et al. appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Major, J., dissenting in part (re remedy), allowed the appeal. The exclusion of "sexual orientation" from the prohibited grounds of discrimina­tion in the impugned sections of the Act violated equality rights (Charter, s. 15(1)) and was not a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1. The appropriate remedy was to read the words "sexual orientation" into the pro­hibited grounds of discrimination listed in the preamble and ss. 2(1), 3, 4, 7(1), 8(1), 10 and 16(1) of the Act.

Sopinka, J., did not participate in the judgment.

Civil Rights - Topic 953

Discrimination - Sexual orientation - Homosexuals - The Alberta Individual's Rights Protection Act (ss. 2(1), 3, 4, 7(1), 8(1), 10) deliberately excluded "sexual orientation" as a prohibited ground of discrimination - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Act's underinclusive­ness created a distinction between hetero­sexuals and homosexuals on the basis of sexual orientation and the Act excluded homosexuals from the govern­ment's state­ment of policy against discrim­ination and denied them access to the Act's remedial procedures - The court, in find­ing the sections contrary to s. 15 of the Charter, stated that "the [Act] in its under­in­clusive state creates a distinction which results in the denial of the equal benefit and protec­tion of the law on the basis of sexual orienta­tion, a personal characteristic which has been found to be analogous to the grounds enumerated in s. 15. ... The seri­ous dis­criminatory effects of the exclu­sion of sexual orientation reinforces this con­clu­sion." - See paragraphs 75 to 107.

Civil Rights - Topic 987

Discrimination - Employment - On basis of sex - Sexual orientation - [See Civil Rights - Topic 953 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 5516

Equality and protection of the law - Gen­eral principles and definitions - Tests for inequality - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the analysis under s. 15(1) involves two steps. First, the claim­ant must show a denial of 'equal protec­tion' or 'equal benefit' of the law, as com­pared with some other person. Second, the claimant must show that the denial consti­tutes discrimination. At this second stage, in order for discrimination to be made out, the claimant must show that the denial rests on one of the grounds enu­merated in s. 15(1) or an analogous ground and that the unequal treatment is based on the stereotypical application of presumed group or personal characteristics." - See paragraph 70.

Civil Rights - Topic 8311

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Nongovernmental or private interference - Section 32(1) of the Charter provided that the Charter applied "to the legislature and government of each prov­ince in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each prov­ince" - At issue was whether the delib­erate omission of "sexual orientation" as a pro­hibited ground of discrimination under the Individual's Rights Protection Act consti­tuted gov­ern­mental action sub­ject to Char­ter scrutiny, or whether s. 32(1) required a positive governmental act - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that where the "challenge concerns an Act of the legisla­ture that is underinclusive as a result of an omission, s. 32 should not be interpreted as preclud­ing the application of the Char­ter" - Although it was unnecess­ary to decide, it might be possible to say that a deliberate decision to omit sexual orien­tation from the Act was an "act" of the legislature - It was also unnecess­ary to decide whether a government was subject to Charter scrutiny for "failing to act at all", as opposed to acting in an underin­clusive manner - See paragraphs 50 to 64.

Civil Rights - Topic 8311

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Nongovernmental or private interference - At issue was whether sub­jecting the Individual's Rights Protection Act to Charter scrutiny impermissibly regulated private activity - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that although "pri­vate activity" was not subject to Charter scrutiny, "laws that regulate private activ­ity" were - See paragraphs 65 to 66.

Civil Rights - Topic 8319

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Human rights legislation -[See both Civil Rights - Topic 8311 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - The deliberate exclu­sion of "sexual orientation" as a prohibited ground of discrimination in ss. 2(1), 3, 4, 7(1), 8(1) and 10 of the Alberta Individual's Rights Protection Act infringed equality rights contrary to s. 15(1) of the Charter - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the infringement was not a rea­sonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 of the Charter - First, there was no evidence respecting the pressing and substantial nature of the objective of omitt­ing "sexual orientation" (the legislative omission, on its face, was the very anti­thesis of the principles embodied in the Act as a whole) - Secondly, the propor­tion­ality test was not satisfied - There was no rational con­nec­tion between protecting all Albertans from discrimina­tion and excluding homo­sexuals, and a total exclu­sion did not con­stitute minimal impairment of a Charter protected right - See para­graphs 108 to 128.

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.1

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Reading in - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the deliberate exclu­sion of "sexual orienta­tion" as a prohibited ground of discrimina­tion in ss. 2(1), 3, 4, 7(1), 8(1) and 10 of the Alberta Individual's Rights Protection Act infringed equality rights contrary to s. 15(1) of the Charter and was not a rea­sonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 of the Charter - The court held that the appropriate remedy was to read the words "sexual orientation" into the pro­hibited grounds of discrimination listed in the preamble and ss. 2(1), 3, 4, 7(1), 8(1), 10 and 16(1) of the Act - See para­graphs 144 to 179.

Civil Rights - Topic 8668

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Equality rights - What constitutes a breach of s. 15 - [See Civil Rights - Topic 953 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 2507.1

Determination of validity of statutes - Reading in - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8380.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

Egan and Nesbitt v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; 182 N.R. 161; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 609, refd to. [para. 13].

Haig and Birch v. Canada et al. (1992), 57 O.A.C. 272; 9 O.R.(3d) 495; 94 D.L.R.(4th) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

McKinney v. University of Guelph, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 229; 118 N.R. 1; 45 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 14].

Schachter v. Canada, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1; 93 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 17].

Miron and Valliere v. Trudel et al., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 418; 181 N.R. 253; 81 O.A.C. 253, refd to. [para. 25].

Thibaudeau v. Minister of National Revenue, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 627; 182 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 25].

Blainey v. Ontario Hockey Association et al. (1986), 14 O.A.C. 194; 54 O.R.(2d) 513 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Dickason and Human Rights Commission (Alta.) v. University of Alberta, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 1103; 141 N.R. 1; 127 A.R. 241; 20 W.A.C. 241; 95 D.L.R.(4th) 439, refd to. [para. 37].

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

Sheena B., Re, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315; 176 N.R. 161; 78 O.A.C. 1, affing. (1992), 58 O.A.C. 93; 96 D.L.R.(4th) 45 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada et al., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236; 132 N.R. 241; 88 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 37].

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. 63].

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. 63].

Haig et al. v. Canada; Haig et al. v. Kings­ley, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 995; 156 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 64].

Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313; 74 N.R. 99; 78 A.R. 1; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 64].

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. 64].

Dolphin Delivery Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580, Peterson and Alexander, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; 71 N.R. 83; 33 D.L.R.(4th) 174; 38 C.C.L.T. 184; 25 C.R.R. 321; [1987] 1 W.W.R. 577; 87 C.L.L.C. 14,002, refd to. [para. 64].

Daigle v. Tremblay, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 530; 102 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 65].

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, refd to. [para. 70].

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. 70].

Benner v. Canada (Secretary of State), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 358; 208 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 71].

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. 72].

Knodel v. British Columbia (Medical Ser­vices Commission) (1991), 58 B.C.L.R.(2d) 356 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 76].

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. 80].

Bliss v. Canada (Attorney General), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 183; 22 N.R. 527, refd to. [para. 85].

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. 93].

Romer v. Evans (1996), 116 S.Ct. 1620 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 98].

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. 108].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. c. Canada (Procureur général), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; 187 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 109].

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. 126].

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

R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81; 1 C.R.(4th) 129; 77 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; [1991] 2 W.W.R. 1; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 3 C.R.R.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 141].

Human Rights Commission (Nfld.) et al. v. Newfoundland (Minister of Employment and Labour Relations) (1995), 134 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 66; 417 A.P.R. 66; 127 D.L.R.(4th) 694 (Nfld. S.C.), refd to. [para. 179].

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. 196].

MacKay et al. v. Manitoba, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 357; 99 N.R. 116; 61 Man.R.(2d) 270; 61 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 43 C.R.R. 1; [1989] 6 W.W.R. 351, refd to. [para. 199].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 108]; sect. 15(1) [para. 67]; sect. 32 [para. 51]; sect. 33 [para. 188].

Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. H-11.7, preamble [para. 10]; sect. 2(1), sect. 3, sect. 4, sect. 7, sect. 8, sect. 10, sect. 11.1, sect. 16(1) [para. 10].

Individual's Rights Protection Act, S.A. 1980, c. I-2, preamble [para. 10]; sect. 2(1), sect. 3, sect. 4, sect. 7, sect. 8, sect. 10, sect. 11.1, sect. 16(1) [para. 10].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ackerman, Bruce, The Rise of World Constitutionalism (1997), 83 Virginia L. Rev. 771, generally [para. 131].

Alberta, Hansard, Legislative Debates (Nov. 22, 1972), p. 80-63 [para. 2].

Alberta, Human Rights Review Panel, Equal in Dignity and Rights: A Review of Human Rights in Alberta (1994), generally [para. 6].

Alberta, Our Commitment to Human Rights: The Government's Response to the Recommendations of the Alberta Human Rights Review Panel (1995), generally [para. 6].

Beatty, David M., Constitutional Law in Theory and Practice (1995), generally [para. 175].

Beatty, David M., Human Rights and Judicial Review: A Comparative Per­spective (1994), generally [para. 131].

Beatty, David M., Law and Politics (1996), 44 Am. J. Comp. L. 131, p. 149 [para. 142].

Bickel, Alexander M., The Least Danger­ous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics (2nd Ed. 1986), p. 17 [para. 133].

Black, William, Vriend, Rights and De­mocracy (1996), 7 Constitutional Forum 126, p. 128 [para. 174].

Dickson, R.G.B., "Keynote Address", in The Cambridge Lectures 1985 (1985), pp. 3, 4 [para. 131].

Dignity Report - see Alberta, Human Rights Review Panel, Equal in Dignity and Rights: A Review of Human Rights in Alberta.

Ely, John H., Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review (1980), gen­erally [para. 175].

Hogg, Peter W., and Bushell, Allison A., The Charter Dialogue Between Courts and Legislatures (1997), 35 Osgoode Hall L.J. 75, generally [para. 137].

Jackman, Martha, Protecting Rights and Promoting Democracy: Judicial Review Under Section 1 of the Charter (1997), 34 Osgoode Hall L.J. 661, generally [para. 142].

Khullar, Ritu, Vriend: Remedial Issues for Unremedied Discrimination (1997), 7 N.J.C.L. 221, pp. 237, 238 [para. 157].

Knopff, Rainer, and Morton, F.L., Charter Politics (1992), generally [para. 133].

Mandel, Michael, The Charter of Rights and the Legalization of Politics in Canada (1994), c. 2 [para. 133].

Monahan, Patrick, A Theory of Judicial Review Under the Charter, in Politics in the Constitution: The Charter, Federalism and the Supreme Court of Canada (1987), pp. 97 to 138 [para. 175].

O'Byrne, Shannon K., and McGinnis, James F., Case Comment: Vriend v. Alberta; Plessy Revisited; Lesbian and Gay Rights in the Province of Alberta (1996), 34 Alta. L. Rev. 892, pp. 920 to 922 [para. 85].

Peacock, Anthony A., Rethinking the Constitution: Perspectives on Canadian Constitutional Reform, Interpretation and Theory (1996), generally [para. 133].

Pothier, Diane, The Sounds of Silence: Charter Application When the Legisla­ture Declines to Speak (1996), 7 Consti­tutional Forum 113, pp. 115 [para. 60]; 119 [para. 82].

Renke, Wayne N., Case Comment: Vriend v. Alberta: Discrimination, Burdens of Proof, and Judicial Notice (1996), 34 Alta. L. Rev. 925, pp. 942, 943 [para. 82].

Roach, Kent, Constitutional Remedies in Canada (1994)(Looseleaf), p. 14-64.1 [para. 159].

Rogerson, Carol, The Judicial Search for Appropriate Remedies Under the Charter: The Examples of Overbreadth and Vagueness, in Charter Litigation (1987), p. 288 [para. 149].

Sharpe, R.J., Charter Litigation (1987), p. 288 [para. 149].

Counsel:

Sheila J. Greckol, Douglas R. Stollery, Q.C., June Ross and Jo-Ann R. Kolmes, for the appellants;

John T. McCarthy, Q.C., and Donna Grainger, for the respondents;

Brian Saunders and James Hendry, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Canada;

Robert E. Charney, for the intervenor, Attorney General for Ontario;

Shirish P. Chotalia and Brian A.F. Edy, for the intervenor, Alberta Civil Liberties Association;

Cynthia Petersen, for the intervenor, Equality for Gays and Lesbians Every­where (EGALE);

Gwen Brodsky and Claire Klassen, for the intervenor, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF);

Raj Anand and Andrew M. Pinto, for the intervenor, Foundation for Equal Fam­ilies;

William F. Pentney and Patricia Lawrence, for the intervenor, Canadian Human Rights Commission;

Steven M. Barrett and Vanessa Payne, for the intervenor, Canadian Labour Con­gress;

James L. Lebo, Q.C., James F. McGinnis and Julia C. Lloyd, for the intervenor, Canadian Bar Association - Alberta Branch;

Thomas S. Kuttner and Rebecca Johnson, for the intervenor, Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies (CASHRA);

R. Douglas Elliott and Patricia A. LeFe­bour, for the intervenor, Canadian AIDS Society;

Dale Gibson, for the intervenor, Alberta and Northwest Conference of the United Church of Canada;

Lyle S.R. Kanee, for the intervenor, Cana­dian Jewish Congress;

Barbara B. Johnston, for the intervenor, Christian Legal Fellowship;

Dallas K. Miller, for the intervenor, Alberta Federation of Women United for Families;

Gerald D. Chipeur and Cindy Silver, for the intervenors, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and Focus on the Family (Canada) Association.

Solicitors of Record:

Chivers Greckol & Kanee, Edmonton, Alberta, for the appellants;

Miles Davison McCarthy, Calgary, Alberta, for the respondents;

Brian Saunders and James Hendry, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Canada;

Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Attorney General for Ontario;

Pundit & Chotalia, Edmonton, Alberta, for the intervenor, Alberta Civil Liberties Association;

Nelligan Power, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor, Equality for Gays and Les­bians Everywhere (EGALE);

Claire Klassen, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF);

Scott & Aylen, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Foundation for Equal Fam­ilies;

William F. Pentney and Patricia Lawrence, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor, Canadian Human Rights Commission;

Sack Goldblatt Mitchell, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Canadian Labour Congress;

McCarthy Tétrault, Calgary, Alberta, for the intervenor, Canadian Bar Association - Alberta Branch;

Thomas S. Kuttner, Fredericton, N.B., for the intervenor, Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies (CASHRA);

Elliott, Rodrigues, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Canadian AIDS Society;

Dale Gibson Associates, Edmonton, Alberta, for the intervenor, Alberta and Northwest Conference of the United Church of Canada;

Witten Binder, Edmonton, Alberta, for the intervenor, Canadian Jewish Congress;

Milner Fenerty, Calgary, Alberta, for the intervenor, Christian Legal Fellowship;

Dallas K. Miller Law Office, Medicine Hat, Alberta, for the intervenor, Alberta Federation of Women United for Fam­ilies;

Milner Fenerty, Calgary, Alberta, for the intervenors, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and Focus on the Family (Canada) Association.

This appeal was heard on November 4, 1997, before Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major and Bastarache, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On April 2, 1998, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Cory and Iacobucci, JJ. (Lamer, C.J.C., Gonthier, McLachlin and Bastarache, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 181;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J. - see paragraphs 182 to 187;

Major, J., dissenting in part - see para­graphs 188 to 202.

Sopinka, J., did not participate in the judgment.