2 total
Same-sex spousal allowance exclusion survived Charter challenge.
A same-sex couple challenged the definition of 'spouse' in the Old Age Security Act after the younger partner was denied a spousal allowance available to opposite-sex common law spouses.
The appeal raised whether exclusion of same-sex couples from the statutory definition violated s. 15(1) of the Charter and, if so, whether it could be justified under s. 1.
A majority dismissed the appeal, with four judges concluding there was no discrimination and one judge concluding there was a s. 15 breach but that it was justified as part of an incremental extension of social benefits.
The decision recognized sexual orientation as an analogous ground under s. 15 and became a foundational equality-rights case in Canadian constitutional law.
Family status did not then include same-sex relationships under the federal human rights statute.
Appeal from a Federal Court of Appeal judgment setting aside a Human Rights Tribunal decision that had found discrimination in the denial of bereavement leave to a federal employee seeking leave to attend the funeral of his same-sex partner's father.
The Supreme Court majority held that the interpretation of 'family status' under the Canadian Human Rights Act was a question of law reviewable for correctness under s. 28 of the Federal Court Act.
On the merits, the majority concluded that, at the material time, 'family status' did not include same-sex relationships and that reading it otherwise would indirectly introduce protection for sexual orientation that Parliament had not then enacted.
The dissent would have deferred to the Tribunal's broad and purposive interpretation and would have reinstated the finding of discrimination.
