Can. (A.G.) v. Mossop (1993), 149 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]
………………..
Canadian Human Rights Commission (appellant) v. Department of Secretary of State, Treasury Board of Canada and Canadian Union of Professional and Technical Employees (respondents) and Attorney General of Canada (respondent) and Brian Mossop (mis en cause) and Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere, Canadian Rights and Liberties Federation, The National Association of Women and the Law, The Canadian Disability Rights Council, and The National Action Committee on the Status of Women (interveners) and Focus on the Family, The Salvation Army, REAL Women, The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and The Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada (interveners)
(No. 22145)
Indexed As: Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop
Supreme Court of Canada
Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ.
February 25, 1993.
Summary:
A male federal government employee lived in a homosexual relationship for several years. He took a day off work to attend his male partner’s father’s funeral. The federal government denied the employee a day of paid bereavement leave under the collective agreement. He grieved unsuccessfully. He then complained to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, alleging discrimination on the basis of “family status”. A Human Rights Tribunal allowed the complaint and ordered that the day off be designated as a day of bereavement under the collective agreement and awarded damages. The Attorney General applied under s. 28 of the Federal Court Act to review and set aside the Tribunal’s decision.
The Federal Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 114 N.R. 241, allowed the application and set aside the decision of the Tribunal. The Canadian Human Rights Commission appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada, L’Heureux-Dubé, Cory and McLachlin, JJ., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.
Administrative Law – Topic 9118
Boards and tribunals – Judicial review – Curial deference – The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that an error of law by a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal was reviewable by the Federal Court of Appeal on an application under s. 28 of the Federal Court Act – The court noted that absent a privative clause, the courts have shown curial deference vis-à-vis certain specialized tribunals when interpreting their own Act – The court held, however, that a tribunal set up under the Canadian Human Rights Act does not have the kind of expertise that should enjoy curial deference on matters other than findings of fact – See paragraphs 22 to 26 – The standard of review on questions of law determined by Human Rights Tribunals is correctness, not a standard of reasonability – See paragraph 45.
Civil Rights – Topic 988
Discrimination – Employment – On basis of family status – Homosexuals – A government employee lived in a homosexual relationship for nine years – He took a day off to attend his partner’s father’s funeral – He was denied bereavement leave under a collective agreement – He complained of discrimination on the basis of “family status” – A Canadian Human Rights Act Tribunal allowed the complaint – The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the Tribunal’s decision should be quashed, holding that there was no discrimination on the basis of “family status” under the Act as it stood at the time the events occurred – The court noted that the issue was strictly one of statutory interpretation and there was no Charter challenge – Further, this decision should not be interpreted as meaning that homosexual couples could not constitute a “family” for the purposes of other legislation – See paragraphs 27 to 40.
Civil Rights – Topic 7115
Federal or provincial legislation – Practice – Judicial review – [See
Administrative Law – Topic 9118
].
Courts – Topic 4086
Federal Court of Canada – Jurisdiction – Federal Court of Appeal – Appeals re errors of law by boards and tribunals – [See
Administrative Law – Topic 9118
].
Words and Phrases
Family status
– The Supreme Court of Canada interpreted this phrase as it appeared in s. 3(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6 – See paragraphs 27 to 40, 46, 47, 95 to 143.
Cases Noticed:
Ontario Human Rights Commission and O’Malley v. Simpson Sears Ltd., [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536; 64 N.R. 161; 12 O.A.C. 241; 23 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 52 O.R.(2d) 799; 9 C.C.E.L. 185; 17 Admin. L.R. 89; 86 C.L.L.C. 17,002, refd to. [paras. 8, 95, 98].
Canadian National Railway Co. v. Bhinder and Canadian Human Rights Commission, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 561; 63 N.R. 185, refd to. [paras. 8, 95].
Action Travail Des Femmes v. Canadian National Railway Co. et al., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1114; 76 N.R. 161, refd to. [paras. 8, 95, 96].
Canadian National Railway Co. v. Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) – see Action Travail Des Femmes v. Canadian National Railway Co. et al.
Brennan v. Canada and Robichaud, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 84; 75 N.R. 303, refd to. [paras. 8, 95].
Robichaud v. Canada (Treasury Board) – see Brennan v. Canada and Robichaud.
Human Rights Commission (Ont.) and Bates v. Zurich Insurance Co., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 321; 138 N.R. 1; 55 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [paras. 25, 69, 85, 89, 95].
Zurich Insurance Co. v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.) – see Human Rights Commission (Ont.) and Bates v. Zurich Insurance Co.
Schachter v. Canada, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 28].
Haig and Birch v. Canada et al. (1992), 57 O.A.C. 272; 9 O.R.(3d) 495 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 28, 29, 151].
Planet Development Corp. and Lester (W.W.) (1978) Ltd. v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry in the United States and Canada, Local 740, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 644; 123 N.R. 241; 88 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 15; 274 A.P.R. 15; 91 C.L.L.C. 14,002; 76 D.L.R.(4th) 389; 48 Admin. L.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 65, 66].
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 963 v. New Brunswick Liquor Corp., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 227; 26 N.R. 341; 25 N.B.R.(2d) 237; 51 A.P.R. 237; 97 D.L.R.(3d) 417; 79 C.L.L.C. 14,209, refd to. [paras. 66, 78, 80, 92].
National Bank of Canada v. Retail Clerk’s International Union and Canada Labour Relations Board, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 269; 53 N.R. 203, refd to. [para. 66].
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Le Syndicat des employés de production du Québec et de l’Acadie, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 412; 55 N.R. 321; 14 D.L.R.(4th) 457, refd to. [para. 66].
Syndicat des professeurs du College de Lévis-Lauzon et al. v. College d’enseignement general et professional de Lévis-Lauzon, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 596; 59 N.R. 194, refd to. [para. 66].
British Columbia Telephone Co. v. Telecommunications Workers Union, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 564; 88 N.R. 260, revsing. (1985), 65 B.C.L.R. 145 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 66, 72].
Syndicat national des employés de la commission scolaire régionale de l’Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048; 95 N.R. 161; 24 Q.A.C. 244, refd to. [paras. 66, 74-80].
U.E.S., Local 298 v. Bibeault – see Syndicat national des employés de la commission scolaire régionale de l’Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ).
Canada (Procureur général) v. Alliance de la Fonction publique du Canada, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 614; 123 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 66].
Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada (Attorney General) and Econosult Inc. – see Canada (Procureur général) v. Alliance de la Fonction publique du Canada.
Paccar of Canada Ltd. v. Canadian Association of Industrial, Mechanical and Allied Workers, Local 14, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 983; 102 N.R. 1; 62 D.L.R.(4th) 437; 89 C.L.L.C. 14,050; [1989] 6 W.W.R. 673; 40 Admin. L.R. 181, refd to. [para. 66].
National Corn Growers Association v. Canadian Import Tribunal, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1324; 114 N.R. 81; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 449; 45 Admin. L.R. 161, refd to. [paras. 66, 69].
McConnell, Hopkinson, Wilson and Benjamin v. Douglas Aircraft Co. of Canada Ltd. and O’Shea, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 245; 29 N.R. 109, refd to. [paras. 68, 73].
Bell Canada v. Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1722; 97 N.R. 14, refd to. [para. 69].
Gendron v. Supply and Services Union of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Local 50057 et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1298; [1990] 2 W.W.R. 385; 109 N.R. 321; 66 Man.R.(2d) 81, refd to. [para. 69].
Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Association v. Douglas College, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 570; 118 N.R. 340, refd to. [para. 70].
Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Labour Relations Board (Ont.) et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5; 122 N.R. 361; 47 O.A.C. 271, refd to. [para. 70].
Tétreault-Gadoury v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 22; 126 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 70].
Crevier v. Quebec (Attorney General) et al., [1981] 2 S.C.R. 220; 38 N.R. 541, refd to. [para. 72].
Halifax Longshoremen’s Association v. Nauss et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 245; 46 N.R. 324, refd to. [para. 78].
Canada Labour Relations Board v. Halifax Longshoreman’s Association – see Halifax Longshoremen’s Association v. Nauss et al.
Ontario Human Rights Commission, Dunlop, Hall and Gray v. Borough of Etobicoke, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 202; 40 N.R. 159, refd to. [paras. 85, 89].
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, refd to. [paras. 85, 89].
Fraser v. Public Service Staff Relations Board, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 455; 63 N.R. 161; 23 D.L.R.(4th) 122, refd to. [paras. 86, 27].
R. v. S.H.M., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 446; 100 N.R. 1; 100 A.R. 321; 50 C.C.C.(3d) 503; [1989] 6 W.W.R. 385; 71 C.R.(3d) 257; 69 Alta. L.R.(2d) 209, refd to. [para. 89].
Canadian Pacific Airlines Ltd. v. Williams, [1982] 1 F.C. 214 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 91].
Insurance Corporation of British Columbia v. Heerspink and Director, Human Rights Code, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 145; 43 N.R. 168, refd to. [para. 95].
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; [1987] 1 W.W.R. 577; 38 C.C.L.T. 184; 25 C.R.R. 321; 87 C.L.L.C. 14,002, refd to. [para. 95].
Blainey v. Ontario Hockey Association (1986), 14 O.A.C. 94; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 728 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 95].
Hills v. Canada (Attorney General), [1988] 1 S.C.R. 513; 84 N.R. 86, refd to. [paras. 95, 107].
Davidson v. Slaight Communications Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183; 59 D.L.R.(4th) 416; 26 C.C.E.L. 85; 89 C.L.L.C. 14,031; 40 C.R.R. 100, refd to. [para. 95].
Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; 106 N.R. 161; 39 O.A.C. 161; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 417; 76 C.R.(3d) 129; 67 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 29 C.P.R.(3d) 97; 47 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 96, 97].
R. v. Miller and Cockriell, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 680; 11 N.R. 386, refd to. [para. 96].
Daigle v. Tremblay, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 530; 102 N.R. 81; 27 Q.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 96].
Skapinker v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 357; 53 N.R. 169; 3 O.A.C. 321; 11 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 9 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 8 C.R.R. 193, refd to. [para. 96].
R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 30; 103 N.R. 86; 37 O.A.C. 322; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 74 C.R.(3d) 281; 45 C.R.R. 278; 71 O.R.(2d) 575, refd to. [para. 96].
R. v. Duarte – see R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano.
Reference Re S. 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 48 C.R.(3d) 289; 69 B.C.L.R. 145; 36 M.V.R. 240; 18 C.R.R. 30; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 536, refd to. [paras. 96, 107].
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. 98].
Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 98].
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) 197; 39 C.R.R. 193, refd to. [para. 104].
R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 122, refd to. [para. 104].
Salomon v. Saloman & Co., [1897] A.C. 22, refd to. [para. 107].
Anti-Inflation Act, Re, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 373; 9 N.R. 541, refd to. [para. 107].
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. 107].
R. v. Krannenburg, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1053; 31 N.R. 206; 20 A.R. 504, refd to. [para. 109].
Royal Trust v. Minister of National Revenue, [1957] C.T.C. 32 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 109].
London Graving Dock Co. v. Horton, [1951] A.C. 737 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 109].
Waldick et al. v. Malcolm et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 456; 125 N.R. 372; 47 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 109].
Moge v. Moge (1992), 145 N.R. 1; 81 Man.R.(2d) 161; 30 W.A.C. 161 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 124].
Schaap and Lagacé et al. v. Canadian Armed Forces, [1989] 3 F.C. 172; 95 N.R. 132 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 125].
Braschi v. Stahl Associates (1989), 74 N.Y.2d 201, refd to. [para. 138].
Bliss v. Canada (Attorney General), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 183; 22 N.R. 527, refd to. [para. 154].
Statutes Noticed:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, generally [paras. 9, 95].
Canadian Human Rights Act (1985) – see Human Rights Act.
Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6, sect. 2 [para. 52]; sect. 3(1), sect. 7(b), sect. 9(1)(c), sect. 10(b) [para. 7]; sect. 27 [paras. 45, 87]; sect. 49 [para. 50]; sect. 55, sect. 56 [para. 89].
Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 52 [para. 38].
Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 485(1) [para. 109].
Contributory Negligence Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. C-23, generally [para. 109].
Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 28 [paras. 6, 14, 22, 23, 44, 51, 86].
Income Tax Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63, sect. 18(1)(l)(ii) [para. 109].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Bartlett, Katharine T., Rethinking Parenthood as an Exclusive Status: The Need for Legal Alternatives When the Premise of the Nuclear Family Has Failed (1984), 70 Val. L. Rev. 879, pp. 880, 881 [para. 121].
Bryden, Philip L., Case Comment: United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Pipefitting Industry v. W.W. Lester (1978) Ltd. (1992), 71 Can. Bar Rev. 580, generally [para. 76].
Canada, House of Commons, Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, Issue No. 114 (December 20, 1982), p. 17 [para. 108]; Issue No. 115 (December 21, 1982), p. 73 [para. 108].
Canada, Statistics Canada, Housing, Family and Social Statistics Division, Target Groups Project, Women in Canada: A Statistical Report (2nd Ed. 1990), p. 7 [para. 121].
Chesler, Phyllis, Mothers on Trial: The Battle for Children and Custody (1986), generally [para. 121].
Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (7th Ed. 1982), “status” [para. 102].
Côté, Pierre-André, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (2nd Ed. 1992), pp. 232 [para. 103]; 272-279 [para. 104].
Diamond, Irene, Ed., Families, Politics and Public Policy: A Feminist Dialogue on Women and the State (1983), p. 8 [para. 117].
D’Silva, Alan L.W., Giving Effect to Human Rights Legislation — A Purposive Approach (1991), 3 Windsor Rev. L. & S. Issues 45, generally [para. 95].
Duclos, Nitya, Disappearing Women: Racial Minority Women in Human Rights Cases, 1992 Conference on Women and the Canadian State (McGill-Queen’s), generally [para. 153].
Dumas, Jean and Yves Péron, Marriage and Conjugal Life in Canada: Current Demographic Analysis (1992), pp. 50, 55 [para. 121].
Eichler, Margarit, Families in Canada Today: Recent Changes and Their Policy Consequences (2nd Ed. 1988), generally [para. 117].
Evans, J.M., Jurisdictional Review in the Supreme Court: Realism, Romance and Recidivism (1991), 48 Admin. L.R. 255, generally [para. 76].
Franklin, Kris, “A Family Like Any Other Family”: Alternative Methods of Defining Family in Law (1990-1991), 18 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 1027, p. 1029 [para. 114].
Golombok, Susan, Ann Spencer and Michael Rutter, Children in Lesbian and Single-Parent Households: Psychosexual and Psychiatric Appraisal (1983), 24 J. Child Psychol. Psychiat. 551, generally [para. 128].
Gomez, Jewelle, Repeat After Me: We Are Different, We Are the Same (1986), 14 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 935, p. 939 [para. 130].
Grey, Julius H., Sections 96 to 100: A Defense (1985), 1 Admin. L.J. 3, p. 11 [para. 73].
Herek, Gregory M., Myths About Sexual Orientation: A Lawyer’s Guide to Social Science Research (1991), 1 Law & Sexuality 133, generally [para. 128].
Herman, Didi, Are We Family?: Lesbian Rights and Women’s Liberation (1990), 28 Osgoode Hall L.J. 789, p. 802 [para. 130].
Homosexuals’ Right to Marry: A Constitutional Test and a Legislative Solution (1979), 128 U. Pa. L. Rev. 193, generally [para. 125].
Langille, Brian, Judicial Review, Judicial Revisionism and Judicial Responsibility (1986), 17 R.G.D. 169, p. 183 [para. 62].
Larson, Jane E., Discussion (1992), 77 Cornell L. Rev. 1012, p. 1014 [para. 128].
Law, Sylvia A., Homosexuality and the Social Meaning of Gender, [1988] Wis. L. Rev. 187, pp. 220, 221 [para. 113].
Lewis, Claudia A., From This Day Forward: A Feminine Moral Discourse on Homosexual Marriage (1987-88), 97 Yale L.J. 1783, p. 1791 [para. 126].
Looking for a Family Resemblance: The Limits of the Functional Approach to the Legal Definition of Family (1991), 104 Harv. L. Rev. 1640, generally [para. 139].
Lorde, Audre, Age, Race, Class and Sex: Women Redefining Difference, in Sister Outsider (1984), pp. 114, 122 [para. 131].
MacLauchlan, H. Wade, Judicial Review of Administrative Interpretations of Law: How Much Formalism Can We Reasonably Bear? (1986), 36 U.T.L.J. 343, generally [para. 80].
Mendola, Mary, The Mendola Report: A New Look at Gay Couples (1980), generally [para. 121].
Michel, Harriet, The Case for the Black Family (1987), 4 Harv. Blackletter J. 21, generally [para. 122].
Mullan, David J., Of Chaff Midst the Corn: American Farm Bureau Federation v. Canada (Canadian Import Tribunal) and Patent Unreasonableness Review (1991), 45 Admin. L.R. 264, generally [para. 76].
Mullan, David, The Re-Emergence of Jurisdictional Error (1985), 14 Admin. L.R. 326, generally [para. 76].
Petit Robert 1 (1990), “situation” [para. 102].
Rich, Adrienne, Husband-Right and Father-Right, in On Lies, Secrets and Silence (1979), p. 219 [para. 129].
Roman, Andrew, J., The Pendulum Swings Back (1991), 48 Admin. L.R. 274, generally [para. 76].
Ryder, Bruce, Equality Rights and Sexual Orientation: Confronting Heterosexual Family Privilege (1990), 9 C.J.F.L. 39, generally [para. 116].
Sage, A., Can Gay Couples Be Good Parents, The Independent on Sunday (March 10, 1992), generally [para. 128].
Stack, Carol B., All Our Kin: Strategies for Survival in a Black Community (1974), generally [para. 122].
Stuart, M., An Analysis of the Concept of Family, in Ann L. Whall and Jacqueline Fawcett, Eds., Family Theory Development in Nursing: State of the Science and Art (1991), p. 40 [para. 117].
Terkelson, Kenneth G., Toward a Theory of the Family Life Cycle, in B. Carter and N. McGoldrick, Eds., The Family Life Cycle: A Framework For Family Therapy (1980), p. 23 [para. 117].
Veevers, Jean E., The Family in Canada (1977), p. 3 [para. 116].
Weiler, Paul C., The “Slippery Slope” of Judicial Intervention: The Supreme Court and Canadian Labour Relations 1950-1970 (1971), 9 Osgoode Hall L.J. 1, p. 33 [para. 73].
Williams, Patricia J., The Alchemy of Race and Rights (1991), generally [para. 153].
Wright, Lorraine M. and M. Leahey, Nurses and Families: A Guide to Family Assessment and Intervention (2nd Ed.), pp. 3-3, 3-4 [para. 117].
Zimmer, Lisa R., Family, Marriage and the Same-Sex Couple (1990), 12 Cardozo L. Rev. 681, pp. 699 [para. 123]; 706 [para. 126]; note 103 [para. 125].
Counsel:
Réne Duval and William Pentney, for the appellant, the Canadian Human Rights Commission;
Barbara A. McIsaac, Q.C., and Lisa Hitch, for the respondents, the Attorney General of Canada, the Department of the Secretary of State and Treasury Board of Canada;
Gwen Brodsky, for the intervenors, the Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere, Canadian Rights and Liberties Federation, The National Association of Women and the Law, The Canadian Disability Rights Council, and The National Action Committee on the Status of Women;
W.I.C. Binnie, Q.C., and Jenney P. Stephenson, for the interveners, Focus on the Family, The Salvation Army, REAL Women, The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and The Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada.
Solicitors of Record:
Réne Duval, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant, the Canadian Human Rights Commission;
Barbara McIsaac, Q.C., Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondents, the Attorney General of Canada, the Department of the Secretary of State and Treasury Board of Canada;
Gwen Brodsky, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervenors, the Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere, Canadian Rights and Liberties Federation, The National Association of Women and the Law, The Canadian Disability Rights Council, and The National Action Committee on the Status of Women;
McCarthy Tétrault, Toronto, Ontario, for the interveners, Focus on the Family, The Salvation Army, REAL Women, The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and The Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada.
This appeal was heard on June 3, 1992, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered on February 25, 1993, in both official languages, including the following opinions:
Lamer, C.J.C. (Sopinka and Iacobucci, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 1 to 41;
La Forest, J., concurring reasons (Iacobucci, J., concurring) – see paragraphs 42 to 47;
L’Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting – see paragraphs 48 to 159;
Cory, J., dissenting – see paragraphs 160, 161;
McLachlin, J., dissenting – see paragraphs 162 to 164.
