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.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., (2002) 287 N.R. 248 (SCC)
...Willick v. Willick, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 670; 173 N.R. 321; 125 Sask.R. 81; 81 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 64]. 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. Statutes Noticed: Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c. 11, sect. 2, sect. 3(1)(a), se......
-
Walsh v. Bona, (2002) 297 N.R. 203 (SCC)
...v. Clarke, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 795 ; 113 N.R. 321 ; 101 N.S.R.(2d) 1 ; 275 A.P.R. 1 , refd to. [para. 23]. 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. 26]. Becker v. Pettkus, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 834 ; 34 N.R. 384 , refd to. [p......
-
Quebec (Attorney General) v. Alliance du personnel professionnel et technique de la santé et des services sociaux, 2018 SCC 17
...Cases Cited By Abella J. Applied: Kahkewistahaw First Nation v. Taypotat, 2015 SCC 30 , [2015] 2 S.C.R. 548 ; Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; referred to: Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143 ; R. v. Kapp, 2008 SCC 41 , [2008] 2 S.C.R. 483 ; Quebec (A......
-
Toronto (City) v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2021 SCC 34
... 2011 SCC 44 , [2011] 3 S.C.R. 134 ; Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624 ; Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; Fraser v. Canada (Attorney General), 2020 SCC 28 ; Reference re Prov. Electoral Boundaries (Sask.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158 ; Reference re Sece......
-
Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., (2002) 287 N.R. 248 (SCC)
...Willick v. Willick, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 670; 173 N.R. 321; 125 Sask.R. 81; 81 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 64]. 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. Statutes Noticed: Broadcasting Act, S.C. 1991, c. 11, sect. 2, sect. 3(1)(a), se......
-
Walsh v. Bona, (2002) 297 N.R. 203 (SCC)
...v. Clarke, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 795 ; 113 N.R. 321 ; 101 N.S.R.(2d) 1 ; 275 A.P.R. 1 , refd to. [para. 23]. 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. 26]. Becker v. Pettkus, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 834 ; 34 N.R. 384 , refd to. [p......
-
Quebec (Attorney General) v. Alliance du personnel professionnel et technique de la santé et des services sociaux, 2018 SCC 17
...Cases Cited By Abella J. Applied: Kahkewistahaw First Nation v. Taypotat, 2015 SCC 30 , [2015] 2 S.C.R. 548 ; Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; referred to: Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143 ; R. v. Kapp, 2008 SCC 41 , [2008] 2 S.C.R. 483 ; Quebec (A......
-
Toronto (City) v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2021 SCC 34
... 2011 SCC 44 , [2011] 3 S.C.R. 134 ; Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624 ; Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; Fraser v. Canada (Attorney General), 2020 SCC 28 ; Reference re Prov. Electoral Boundaries (Sask.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158 ; Reference re Sece......
-
Supreme Court Of Canada Affirms The Importance Of Protecting "Counter-Speech"
...General of Quebec, 2021 QCCS 191, at paras. 104 and 106. 11. See: Egan v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513, at p. 528; Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493, at para. 12. Hansman (S.C.C.), at para. 80. 13. Hansman (S.C.C.), at para. 81 (citations omitted). 14. Hansman (S.C.C.), at para. 82 (cit......
-
Québec: What Protection From Discrimination Do Employees Have On The Grounds Of Sexual Orientation?
...Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11, s. 15 [2] Egan v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513 [3] Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493 [4] Québec, Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, CQLR c [5] Idem, s. 52 [6] Idem, s. 55 [7] Idem, s. 10 [8] Idem, s. 74 [9] Canadian Human......
-
Supreme Court Of Canada Decision A Validation Of Co-Operative Federalism, Harm Reduction And Substantive Judicial Review
...as well as for those who argue for a rational and evidence-based approach to health care policy-making. Footnotes 1 Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493 at paras. The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought a......
-
Québec: what protection from discrimination do employees have on the grounds of sexual orientation?
...Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11, s. 15 [2] Egan v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513 [3] Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493 [4] Québec, Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, CQLR c C-12 [5] Idem, s. 52 [6] Idem, s. 55 [7] Idem, s. 10 [1] The Constitution Act, 19......
-
Table of Cases
...523, 886 L. Ed. 726 (1942) .................................................................................. 294 Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493, 156 D.L.R. (4th) 385, 224 N.R. 1 ............................................................. 418, 419, 420, 423, 424, 446 Walker v. Cha......
-
Table of cases
...States v Dynar, [1997] 2 SCR 462 .............................................................................. 213 Vriend v Alberta, [1998] 1 SCR 493 ....................................................................... 51, 52, 63, 64 WIC Radio Ltd v Simpson, 2008 SCC 40 ......................
-
Measuring judicial activism on the Supreme Court of Canada: a comment on Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v. NAPE.
...[1999) 2 S.C.R. 1083 * * Vancouver Society of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women v. M.N.R., [1999] 1 S.C.R. 10 * Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493 * * Walker v. Prince Edward Island, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 407 Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625 *......
-
Engaging Section 7
...described the proposition that there was “a general freestanding right to adequate housing” as “doubtful.” 184 As in Vriend v Alberta , [1998] 1 SCR 493. 185 Dunmore v Ontario (Attorney General) , 2001 SCC 94 at para 31. The right in question in Dunmore was the right of freedom of associati......