Vriend et al. v. Alberta, (1994) 152 A.R. 1 (QB)

• Judge: Russell, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: April 12, 1994
• Citations: (1994), 152 A.R. 1 (QB)

Vriend v. Alta. (1994), 152 A.R. 1 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Delwin Vriend and GALA - Gay and Lesbian Awareness Society of Edmonton and Gay and Lesbian Community Centre of Edmonton Society and Dignity Canada Dignite for Gay Catholics and Supporters (applicants) v. Her Majesty The Queen in right of Alberta and Her Majesty's Attorney General in and for the Province of Alberta (respondents)

(Action No. 9203-02452)

Indexed As: Vriend et al. v. Alberta

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Russell, J.

April 12, 1994.

Summary:

Vriend et al. challenged the constitutional validity of ss. 2(1), 3, 4, 7(1), 8(1) and 10 of the Individual's Rights Protection Act (Alta.) under s. 15 of the Charter. Vriend et al. alleged that the impugned sections of the Act were discriminatory and infringed s. 15 of the Charter because they did not include sexual orientation as a proscribed ground of discrimination.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench declared that the impugned provisions were inconsistent with s. 15(1) of the Charter and that the infringement of s. 15(1) was not justified under s. 1 of the Charter. As a remedy, the court held that the sections should be interpreted, applied and administered as though they contained the words "sexual orientation". The court stayed its declaration for 30 days to permit the Crown to consider an appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 953

Discrimination - Sexual orientation - Homosexuals - The Alberta Individual's Rights Protection Act (the Act), ss. 2(1), 3, 4, 7(1), 8(1) and 10, did not include sexual orientation as a proscribed ground of discrimination - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held homosexuals were a discrete and insular minority entitled to s. 15(1) Charter protection and the omission of sexual orientation as one of the proscribed grounds in the Act constituted discrimination under s. 15(1) - Further, the s. 15(1) violation was not justified under s. 1 of the Charter - As a remedy, the court held that the impugned sections should be interpreted, applied and administered as though they contained the words "sexual orientation".

Civil Rights - Topic 987

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

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

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

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.1

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Reading in - [See Civil Rights - Topic 953 ].

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 953 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8672

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Equality rights (s. 15) - Analogous categories - [See Civil Rights - Topic 953 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 2507.1

Determination of validity of statutes - Reading in - [See Civil Rights - Topic 953 ].

Evidence - Topic 2200

Special modes of proof - Judicial notice - General principles - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed generally the concept of judicial notice - See paragraphs 13 to 28.

Evidence - Topic 2260

Special modes of proof - Judicial notice - Social conditions - Discrimination against homosexuals - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the court was entitled to take judicial notice of discrimination against homosexuals - See paragraphs 9 to 28.

Cases Noticed:

Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236; 132 N.R. 241; 88 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 6].

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. 10].

Reference Re Sections 32 and 34 of the Worker's Compensation Act (Nfld.), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 922; 96 N.R. 227; 76 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 235 A.P.R. 181; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 765; 40 C.R.R. 135, refd to. [para. 10].

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. 193, refd to. [para. 10].

Haig et al. v. Canada: Haig et al. v. Kingsley, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 995; 156 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 10].

Mohr v. Scoffield (1992), 117 A.R. 372; 83 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Moge v. Moge, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813; 145 N.R. 1; 81 Man.R.(2d) 161; 30 W.A.C. 161; [1993] 1 W.W.R. 481; 99 D.L.R.(4th) 456; 43 R.F.L.(3d) 345, refd to. [para. 17].

Knodel v. British Columbia (Medical Services Commission) (1991), 58 B.C.L.R.(2d) 356 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 18].

Haig and Birch v. Canada et al. (1992), 57 O.A.C. 272; 9 O.R.(3d) 495 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Mercedes Homes Inc. v. Grace, [1993] O.J. No. 2610 (Ont. C.J.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Scythes, [1993] O.J. No. 537 (Ont. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 21].

Egan and Nesbit v. Canada (1993), 153 N.R. 161; 103 D.L.R.(4th) 336 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689; 153 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 24].

Brown v. British Columbia (Minister of Health) (1990), 66 D.L.R.(4th) 444 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

Leroux v. Co-operators General Insurance Co. (1991), 50 O.A.C. 220; 83 D.L.R.(4th) 694 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Catholic Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto v. T.S. and C.S. et al. (1989), 33 O.A.C. 213; 60 D.L.R.(4th) 397 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Rural Route Mail Couriers of Canada, Local 1801 et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (1989), 29 F.T.R. 105 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 33].

Gingras v. Canada (1990), 69 D.L.R.(4th) 55 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 33].

Haddock v. Ontario (Attorney General) (1990), 70 D.L.R.(4th) 644 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

Veysey v. Correctional Service of Canada, [1990] 1 F.C. 321; 29 F.T.R. 74 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 34].

Veysey v. Correctional Service of Canada (1990), 109 N.R. 300 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Sharma et al.; R. v. Greenbaum (1991), 44 O.A.C. 355; 77 D.L.R.(4th) 334 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Budge v. Workers' Compensation Board (Alta.) (1991), 111 A.R. 228; 77 D.L.R.(4th) 361 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Smith, Kline & French Laboratories Ltd. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (1986), 78 N.R. 30; 34 D.L.R.(4th) 584 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Hoogbruin v. British Columbia (Attorney General) (1985), 70 B.C.L.R. 1 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Schachter v. Canada et al. (1990), 108 N.R. 123; 66 D.L.R.(4th) 635 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Brooks, Allen and Dixon et al. v. Canada Safeway Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1219; [1989] 4 W.W.R. 193; 94 N.R. 373; 58 Man.R.(2d) 161, refd to. [para. 41].

McKinney v. University of Guelph, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 229; 118 N.R. 1; 45 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 43].

Blainey v. Ontario Hockey Association et al. (1986), 14 O.A.C. 194; 54 O.R.(2d) 513 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

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. 57].

Osborne, Millar and Barnhart et al. v. Canada (Treasury Board) (1991), 125 N.R. 241 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 57].

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. 63].

Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1; 93 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 66].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 54]; sect. 15(1) [para. 9]; sect. 24(1) [para. 66].

Constitution Act 1982, sect. 52 [para. 66].

Individual's Rights Protection Act, S.A. 1980, c. I-2, sect. 2(1), sect. 3, sect. 4, sect. 7(1), sect. 8(1), sect. 10 [para. 5].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Davis, K., Judicial Notice (1955), 55 Colum. L. Rev. 945, pp. 952, 953 [para. 15].

Morgan, E.M., Judicial Notice (1944), 57 Harv. L. Rev. 269, p. 274 [para. 14].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sydney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (1992), pp. 976, 977, 978 [para. 13].

Thayer, A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at the Common Law (1898), pp. 279, 299, 308, 309 [para. 14].

Counsel:

Victor Leginsky, for the applicants;

Margaret Unsworth, for the respondents.

This case was heard before Russell, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on April 12, 1994.