Canada (AG) v Mossop

Last updated
Canada (AG) v Mossop
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Hearing: June 3, 1992
Judgment: February 25, 1993
Full case nameCanadian Human Rights Commission v. Department of Secretary of State, Treasury Board of Canada and Canadian Union of Professional and Technical Employees and Attorney General of Canada and Brian Mossop
Citations [1993] 1 SCR 554, 100 DLR (4th) 658
Docket No.22145 [1]
Prior historyJudgment for the Canadian Human Rights Commission in Federal Court of Appeal.
RulingAppeal dismissed
Holding
  1. The Federal Court of Appeal had the necessary jurisdiction to overturn the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal as there was no privative clause.
  2. There was no discrimination because sexual orientation was not a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act . Absent a Charter challenge, the Act could not be interpreted to include sexual orientation.
Court membership
Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer
Puisne Justices: Gérard La Forest, Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, John Sopinka, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin, William Stevenson, Frank Iacobucci
Reasons given
MajorityLamer C.J., joined by Sopinka and Iacobucci JJ.
ConcurrenceLa Forest J., joined by Iacobucci J.
Concur/dissentCory J.
Concur/dissentMcLachlin J.
DissentL'Heureux-Dube J.
Gonthier and Stevenson JJ. took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
Canadian Human Rights Act, RSC, 1985, c H‑6, ss. 3, 10
Federal Court Act, RSC, 1985, c F‑7, s. 28

Canada (AG) v Mossop, [1993] 1 SCR 554 was the first decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to consider equality rights for gays. The case is also significant as one of Justice L'Heureux-Dube's most famous dissents where she proposes an evolving model of the "family".

Contents

Background

In 1985, Brian Mossop, a gay man from Toronto, sought bereavement leave from his employer, the Canadian federal government's Translation Bureau, to attend the funeral of his same-sex partner's father. His partner is journalist and activist Ken Popert. [2] His employer denied him leave under the collective agreement on the grounds that Popert was not "immediate family". Mossop took his employer before the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Sexual orientation was not a prohibited ground of discrimination at that time, so he argued that he had been discriminated against on the basis of his "family status", under section 3 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found in his favour, but the government appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal and the favourable finding was overturned. Mossop appealed to the Supreme Court, but it upheld the finding of the Federal Court.

Reasons of the court

The majority held that absent a Charter challenge of the constitutional validity of the Canadian Human Rights Act, there was no grounds for a claim.

The only issues raised in the appeal was a question of law on whether the Federal Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to overturn the Tribunal under s. 28 of the Federal Court Act and of statutory interpretation of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

It was held that the Federal Court of Appeal did have the necessary jurisdiction to review the Tribunal's decision, as there was no privative clause governing the Tribunal. Since the question posed to the Tribunal was one of statutory interpretation, a question of law, judicial deference was not warranted.

On the question of whether there was discrimination on the basis of "family status", the court found that there was no grounds for Mossop's claim because Parliament intentionally excluded sexual orientation from the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination. Since the intent was clear, both the Federal Court and Tribunal were bound to apply the law.

Dissent

In dissent, Madam Justice L'Heureux-Dube found that there was basis to read sexual orientation into the term "family status" within the Canadian Human Rights Act. She argued that the meaning of family should be read purposively and that given the growing number of non-traditional families there is a need to reconsider its meaning in light of these changes. She was joined on this point by McLachlin J. and Cory J., who both agreed that the relationship of Mossop and his partner fell within the scope of the term "family status".

Aftermath

Despite the dismissal of his appeal Mossop declared the decision a success as it opened up a national debate on gay rights. [3] A subsequent Supreme Court case to consider discrimination against gay persons, Egan v. Canada , would find that sexual orientation is a prohibited grounds of discrimination under Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

See also

Related Research Articles

<i>Egan v Canada</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Egan v Canada, [1995] 2 SCR 513 was one of a trilogy of equality rights cases published by the Supreme Court of Canada in the second quarter of 1995. It stands today as a landmark Supreme Court case which established that sexual orientation constitutes a prohibited basis of discrimination under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Claire L'Heureux-Dubé is a retired Canadian judge who served as a puisne justice on the Supreme Court of Canada from 1987 to 2002. She was the first woman from Quebec and the second woman appointed to this position, after Bertha Wilson. Previously, she had been one of the first woman lawyers to handle divorce cases, and was the first woman appointed as a judge to the Quebec Superior Court and the Quebec Court of Appeal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Delwin Vriend</span>

Delwin Vriend is a Canadian teacher who was at the center of a landmark provincial and federal legal case, Vriend v. Alberta, concerning the inclusion of sexual orientation as a protected human right in Canada.

<i>Canadian Human Rights Act</i> Canadian federal statute protecting human rights

The Canadian Human Rights Act is a statute passed by the Parliament of Canada in 1977 with the express goal of extending the law to ensure equal opportunity to individuals who may be victims of discriminatory practices based on a set of prohibited grounds.

<i>Vriend v Alberta</i> Supreme Court of Canada 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.

<i>Human Rights Code</i> (Ontario) Ontario, Canada statute

The Human Rights Code is a statute in the Canadian province of Ontario that guarantees equality before the law and prohibits discrimination in specific social areas such as housing or employment. The code's goal specifically prohibits discrimination based on race, colour, gender identity or expression, sex, sexual orientation, disability, creed, age and other grounds. The code is administered by the Ontario Human Rights Commission and enforced by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of religion in Canada</span>

Freedom of religion in Canada is a constitutionally protected right, allowing believers the freedom to assemble and worship without limitation or interference.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Canada</span>

Canadian lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBTQ) rights are some of the most extensive in the world. Same-sex sexual activity, in private between consenting adults, was decriminalized in Canada on June 27, 1969, when the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968–69 was brought into force upon royal assent. In a landmark decision in 1995, Egan v Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada held that sexual orientation is constitutionally protected under the equality clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In 2005, Canada became the fourth country in the world, and the first in the Americas to legalize same-sex marriage. In 2022, Canada was the third country in the world, and the first in North America, to fully ban conversion therapy nationwide for both minors and adults.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Foundation for Equal Families</span>

The Foundation for Equal Families is a Canadian gay and lesbian rights group founded in 1994 following the failure of Bill 167 in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. The group's mandate is "Dedicated to achieving recognition and equality for same sex relationships and associated family rights through education and legal action". Meeting this mandate was accomplished by intervening in various precedent-setting legal cases, through representation at various pride parades and most notably in suing the Canadian federal government over failure to amend 58 pieces of federal legislation that were charter-infringing due to the definition of spouse.

<i>Smith v Gardner Merchant</i>

Smith v Gardner Merchant [1998] IRLR 510 is a UK labour law case, concerning the possibility of claiming compensation for discrimination under the gender statutes. It took place before the Employment Equality Regulations 2003 were introduced.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human rights in Canada</span>

Human rights in Canada have come under increasing public attention and legal protection since World War II. Prior to that time, there were few legal protections for human rights. The protections which did exist focused on specific issues, rather than taking a general approach to human rights.

A protected group, protected class (US), or prohibited ground (Canada) is a category by which people are qualified for special protection by a law, policy, or similar authority. In Canada and the United States, the term is frequently used in connection with employees and employment and housing. Where illegal discrimination on the basis of protected group status is concerned, a single act of discrimination may be based on more than one protected class. For example, discrimination based on antisemitism may relate to religion, ethnicity, national origin, or any combination of the three; discrimination against a pregnant woman might be based on sex, marital status, or both.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Bermuda</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in Bermuda, a British Overseas Territory, face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Homosexuality is legal in Bermuda, but the territory has long held a reputation for being homophobic and intolerant. Since 2013, the Human Rights Act has prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBTQ rights in Michigan</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Michigan enjoy the same rights as non-LGBTQ people. Michigan in June 2024 was ranked "the most welcoming U.S. state for LGBT individuals". Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Michigan under the U.S. Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, although the state legislature has not repealed its sodomy law. Same-sex marriage was legalised in accordance with 2015's Obergefell v. Hodges decision. Discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity is unlawful since July 2022, was re-affirmed by the Michigan Supreme Court - under and by a 1976 statewide law, that explicitly bans discrimination "on the basis of sex". The Michigan Civil Rights Commission have also ensured that members of the LGBT community are not discriminated against and are protected in the eyes of the law since 2018 and also legally upheld by the Michigan Supreme Court in 2022. In March 2023, a bill passed the Michigan Legislature by a majority vote - to formally codify both "sexual orientation and gender identity" anti-discrimination protections embedded within Michigan legislation. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed the bill on March 16, 2023. In 2024, Michigan repealed “the last ban on commercial surrogacy within the US” - for individuals and couples and reformed the parentage laws, that acknowledges same sex couples and their families with children.

This article gives a broad overview of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) history in Canada. LGBT activity was considered a crime from the colonial period in Canada until 1969, when Bill C-150 was passed into law. However, there is still discrimination despite anti-discrimination law. For a more detailed listing of individual incidents in Canadian LGBT history, see also Timeline of LGBT history in Canada.

The Human Rights Act 2003 (Act) is an Act of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut, the majority of which came into effect on November 5, 2004. The stated purposes of the Act are "to acknowledge within the framework of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit that the Government, all public agencies, boards and commissions and all persons in Nunavut have the responsibility to guarantee that every individual in Nunavut is afforded an equal opportunity to enjoy a full and productive life and that failure to provide equality of opportunity threatens the development and well-being of all persons in the community." The Act explicitly does not affect any protections provided for by the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. A notable achievement of this legislation was to end Nunavut's status as the only jurisdiction in Canada without protections for gay, lesbian and bisexual residents against discrimination.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT employment discrimination in the United States</span>

LGBT employment discrimination in the United States is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is encompassed by the law's prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to the landmark cases Bostock v. Clayton County and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2020), employment protections for LGBT people were patchwork; several states and localities explicitly prohibit harassment and bias in employment decisions on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, although some only cover public employees. Prior to the Bostock decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted Title VII to cover LGBT employees; the EEOC determined that transgender employees were protected under Title VII in 2012, and extended the protection to encompass sexual orientation in 2015.

Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights case which ruled that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 employees could not be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case which ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects transgender people from employment discrimination.

Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights decision in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination because of sexuality or gender identity.

References

  1. SCC Case Information - Docket 22145 Supreme Court of Canada
  2. Smith, Miriam Catherine. Lesbian and Gay Rights in Canada: Social Movements and Equality-Seeking, 1971-1995. University of Toronto Press, 1999. ISBN   978-0802081971. p. 89.
  3. Didi Herman, "Rights of Passage", p.60