Sexual Orientation

This is an appeal from a 2-1 decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal. In issue is the lack of protection from discrimination for gays and lesbians provided under Alberta's Individual's Rights Protection Act ("IRPA"). The Supreme Court of Canada overturns the Appeal Court decision. In a 7-1 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada holds that the omission of the ground sexual orientation from the IRPA is a violation of s. 15 of the Charter and cannot be saved by s. 1.

Comprising the majority are: Lamer C.J., Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, and Bastarache JJ. Although in overall agreement with the results reached by the majority, L'Heureux-Dubé J. writes a separate concurring opinion regarding the s. 15 analysis. While agreeing that the challenged omission is discriminatory, Major J. dissents with respect to remedy.

The majority decision is authored by Cory and Iacobucci JJ. jointly. Cory J. writes the majority opinion regarding s. 15...

William Dwyer and Mary-Woo Sims allege that the Municipality of Metro Toronto discriminates against lesbian and gay employees who have partners of the same-sex with respect to three categories of employment benefits: uninsured benefits (such as leave to care for ill dependents); insured benefits (such as extended health); and survivor pension entitlement. They assert that this discrimination with respect to benefits contravenes the OntarioHuman Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Though Metro Toronto argues that in practice uninsured benefits, such as bereavement leave and leave to care for ill dependents, are granted on a discretionary basis to lesbian and gay employees to mourn for or take care of persons with whom they are intimate, the collective agreement with CUPE, Local 79 and Metro personnel policies do not acknowledge the family relationships of employees in same-sex relationships and no formal written direction has...

Stanley Moore and Dale Akerstrom are both gay employees of the federal government. Mr. Moore is a Foreign Service Officer who was employed by the Department of External Affairs at the time of the complaint. In April 1990 he began living with Mr. Pierre Soucy in a spousal relationship. In February 1991 Mr. Moore was posted to Jakarta, Indonesia, as Counsellor for Development and Counsellor for Economics. He applied for spousal benefits under the Foreign Service Directives in 1991. These directives relate to a number of costs involved when relocation is required of an employee. He was not able to obtain the usual relocation assistance provided for spouses because Mr. Soucy was not considered a spouse because he is of the same sex as Mr. Moore. The benefits to which he and Mr. Soucy did not have full access include accommodation costs, post differential allowance, dental and health care benefits, and others.

Dale Akerstrom has been employed by CEIC since April 1990. In...

This was an application for judicial review of a decision of a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal which found that Tony McAleer and Canadian Liberty Net ("CLN") violated s. 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act by transmitting telephonically messages which exposed persons to hatred and contempt because of their sexual orientation.

The applicants argued that: (1) s. 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act which prohibits transmission of telephonic messages which expose a group of persons to hatred or contempt represents an interference in the province's exclusive jurisdiction over property and civil rights; (2) s. 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act contravenes ss. 2(a) and (b) and s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantee freedom of speech and liberty; (3) the Tribunal's interpretation of "sexual orientation" was vague and overly broad and therefore infringes ss. 2(a) and (b) and s. 7 of the Charter; and (4)...

In a split 4-3 decision, the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada finds that the ground "family status" in the Canadian Human Rights Act does not give Brian Mossop, a gay employee, the right to be covered by a benefit provision in his collective agreement.

Mr. Mossop is an employee of the federal government who took a day off work to attend the funeral of his lover's father. His lover is a man. The collective agreement between Treasury Board and the Canadian Union of Professional and Technical Employees provided for up to four days' bereavement leave upon the death of a member of an employee's "immediate family". This term was defined to cover a broad range of relationships, including a common-law spouse. However, the definition of common-law spouse was restricted to a person of the opposite sex.

Mossop applied for and was refused bereavement leave. He filed a complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act alleging discrimination based on the...

The Board of Inquiry finds that Michael Leshner was discriminated against by his employer, the Province of Ontario, because of his sexual orientation when he was denied coverage under employment benefit plans for his same-sex partner.

Mr. Leshner is employed as a Crown Counsel with the Ministry of the Attorney General. In 1988 he complained that his employment benefits, including supplementary health and hospital benefits, a dental care plan, and a pension plan were discriminatory because they did not entitle his same-sex partner to coverage, though opposite-sex partners are.

In December 1990 the Government of Ontario announced that it would extend full coverage for all insured and non-insured benefits to couples of the same sex. However, Mr. Leshner was informed that restrictions in the federal Income Tax Act prevented the Government of Ontario from providing survivor benefits under the pension plan to same-sex partners of plan members. The definition of "...