Vriend v Alberta
Vriend v Alberta | |
---|---|
Alberta Court of Appeal | |
Ruling | Appeal allowed and cross-appeal dismissed. |
Holding | |
A legislative omission regarding sexual orientation in the Alberta Individual Rights Protection Act violates section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and cannot be saved under section 1 of the Charter. | |
Court membership | |
Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer Puisne Justices: Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, John Sopinka, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major, Michel Bastarache | |
Reasons given | |
Majority | Cory and Iacobucci JJ. (paras. 1-181), joined by Lamer C.J., and Gonthier, McLachlin, and Bastarache JJ. |
Concurrence | L'Heureux-Dubé J. (paras. 182-187) |
Concur/dissent | Major J. (para. 188-202) |
Sopinka J. took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. |
Vriend v Alberta [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493 is an important Supreme Court of Canada case that determined that a legislative omission can be the subject of a Charter violation. The case involved a dismissal of a teacher because of his sexual orientation and was an issue of great controversy during that period.
History
The Court of Queen's Bench (Justice
Ruling
There were two issues put before the Supreme Court:
- Do (a) decisions not to include sexual orientation or (b) the non‑inclusion of sexual orientation, as a prohibited ground of discrimination in the preamble and ss. 2(1), 3, 4, 7(1), 8(1), 10 and 16(1) of the Individual's Rights Protection Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. I‑2, as am., now called the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. H‑11.7, infringe or deny the rights guaranteed by s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
- If the answer to Question 1 is "yes", is the infringement or denial demonstrably justified as a reasonable limit pursuant to s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?[3]
The court decided yes to the first question and no to the second. They found that there is no legal basis for drawing a distinction of the Charter scrutinizing a positive act and an omission.
Section 15
The court looked at the language of
- Neutrality cannot be assumed. To do so would remove the omission from the scope of judicial scrutiny under the Charter. The appellants have challenged the law on the ground that it violates the Constitution of Canada, and the courts must hear and consider the challenge.
The court then looked at the application of the Charter to private activities.
- Although the [Act] targets private activities and as a result has an 'effect' on those activities it does not follow that this indirect effect should remove the [Act] from the purview of the Charter. It would lead to an unacceptable result if any legislation that regulated private activity would for that reason alone be immune from Charter scrutiny.
- The respondents' submission has failed to distinguish between "private activity" and "laws that regulate private activity". The former is not subject to the Charter, while the latter obviously is.
Section 1
The court followed this with a section 1 analysis to which they decided was not applicable. In concluding, the court ruled that to remedy the situation "sexual orientation" must be read into the impugned provision of the Act.
Firstly, the respondents failed to show a "pressing and substantial objective". The Court dismissed the respondents' submission, that the predicament would be rare, as only an "explanation" and not an objective, as it lacked any description of goal or purpose.
Secondly, the respondents failed to show a "rational connection". The Court was especially harsh on this point, stating:
- Far from being rationally connected to the objective of the impugned provisions, the exclusion of sexual orientation from the Act is antithetical to that goal. Indeed, it would be nonsensical to say that the goal of protecting persons from discrimination is rationally connected to, or advanced by, denying such protection to a group which this Court has recognized as historically disadvantaged. (para. 119)
The respondents attempted to justify the rational connection as part of an incrementalist approach similar to one used in Egan v Canada, which the Court rejected as inappropriate and a poor basis for justifying a Charter violation.
Thirdly, the respondents failed to show that there was "minimal impairment". Though the legislature must balance between the competing rights of religious freedoms and protections of gays and lesbians, the legislature made no compromise between rights at all.
Dissenting view
The sole dissenting opinion was written by Justice
Response
Following the decision, some Alberta MLAs called for the government to invoke Canada's
See also
References
- ^ SCC Case Information - Docket 25285 Supreme Court of Canada
- ^ "Vriend v. Alberta - SCC Cases". January 2001.
- ^ "Vriend v. Alberta - SCC Cases". January 2001.
- ^ "A weak argument against redneck rap," Edmonton Journal, February 6, 2005, pg. A.12
- ^ Colby Cosh, "Klein's eye for the queer guy," National Post, December 16, 2004, pg. A.21.
- ^ John Carpay, "Klein governs like Chretien and Martin," National Post, November 26, 2004, pg. A.21.
External links
- Full text of Supreme Court of Canada decision at LexUM and CanLII
- Fundamental Freedoms: The Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Charter of Rights website with video, audio and the Charter in over 20 languages
- subsequent cases citing Supreme Court decision in Vriend via CanLII