Charles Gonthier

The appellants challenged Alberta human rights legislation that omitted sexual orientation from the prohibited grounds of discrimination after a dismissed employee was denied access to the provincial human rights complaint process.

The Court held that the Charter applies to underinclusive legislation and that the omission created a discriminatory denial of the equal benefit and protection of the law contrary to s. 15(1).

The respondents failed to justify the omission under s. 1, including at the pressing and substantial objective stage of the Oakes analysis.

Applying Schachter, the Court held that reading in “sexual orientation” to the impugned provisions was the appropriate remedy.

The appeal was allowed and the cross-appeal dismissed with costs.

The appellant challenged a Court of Appeal ruling declaring unconstitutional a reverse-onus bail provision applicable to certain narcotics offences.

The Supreme Court held that habeas corpus was available in the narrow circumstances of a constitutional challenge seeking both a declaration under s. 52 and a remedial order under s. 24(1), but reaffirmed that bail review under the Criminal Code is ordinarily the proper route.

On the merits, the majority held that the reverse-onus provision did not infringe ss. 7, 9, 11(d), or 11(e) of the Charter because it operated in a narrow class of offences and was justified by the functioning of the bail system in relation to drug trafficking and flight risk.

The appeal was allowed and the habeas corpus application dismissed, subject only to the contemporaneous modification arising from Morales.

Criminal appeal from an order setting aside an acquittal and directing a new trial after the trial judge limited both sides to four peremptory challenges and denied the Crown any stand bys.

The Supreme Court held, by majority, that the Crown's substantially greater ability to shape the jury through stand bys and peremptory challenges created a reasonable apprehension of partiality and infringed the accused's right to a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal under s. 11(d) of the Charter.

The infringement was not justified under s. 1.

The Court also held that statements made after counsel had been retained were properly excluded because the police response to the accused's inquiry about contact from his father was misleading in the circumstances.

The appeal was allowed and the acquittal restored.