Vriend v. Alberta
| Vriend v Alberta | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Hearing: November 4, 1997 Judgment: April 2, 1998 |
|
| Full case name | Delwin Vriend, Gala-Gay and Lesbian Awareness Society of Edmonton, Gay and Lesbian Community Centre of Edmonton Society and Dignity Canada Dignité for Gay Catholics and Supporters v Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Alberta and Her Majesty's Attorney General in and for the Province of Alberta |
| Citations | [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; 1998 CanLII 816 (S.C.C.); 1998), 156 D.L.R. (4th) 385; (1998), [1999] 5 W.W.R. 451; [1998] 31 C.H.R.R. 1; (1998), 50 C.R.R. (2d) 1; (1998), 67 Alta. L.R. (3d) 1 |
| Docket No. | 25285 |
| Prior history | Partial judgment for the Crown in the 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, Gonthier, McLachlin, and Bastarache |
| 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.
Delwin Vriend was dismissed from his position as a lab coordinator at King's College, a private religious college in Edmonton, Alberta, because of his sexual orientation. He was prevented from making a complaint under the Alberta Individual Rights Protection Act because the legislation did not include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination. Vriend sought a declaration from the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench that the omission breached section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms 1982.
Justice Russell of the Court of Queen's Bench found in favour of Vriend as the exclusion of sexual orientation as a protected ground of discrimination from ss. 7(1), 8(1) and 10 of the Individual’s Rights Protection Act (IRPA) violates s. 15(1) of the Charter and could not be saved under section 1. The Alberta Court of Appeal, in a decision written by Justice McClung, overturned the trial decision.
There were two issues put before the Supreme Court:
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.
The court looked at the language of section 32 and found that it does not limit to only positive acts. It is not only to protect against encroachment on rights or the excessive exercise of authority, as McClung suggested, rather it is a tool for citizens to challenge the law in all its forms. The legislature's silence on an issue does not constitute neutrality with first assessing the application of section 15.
...
Wikipedia