Gosselin v Quebec (AG)

Last updated
Gosselin v Quebec (AG)
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: October 29, 2001
Judgment: December 19, 2002
Full case nameLouise Gosselin v. The Attorney General of Quebec
Citations [2002] 4 SCR 429, 2002 SCC 84
Holding
There is violation of section 15(1) equality right for a law denying full social assistance benefits for youth.
Court membership
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin CJ
Puisne Justices Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, Charles Gonthier, Frank Iacobucci, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie, John C. Major, Louise Arbour, and Louis LeBel JJ
Reasons given
MajorityMcLachlin, joined by Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major and Binnie
DissentBastarache
DissentLeBel
DissentArbour
DissentL’Heureux-Dubé
Laws applied
Law v Canada , [1999] 1 SCR 497 (McLachlin)

Gosselin v Quebec (AG) [2002] 4 SCR 429, 2002 SCC 84, is the first claim under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to a right to an adequate level of social assistance. The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the Charter challenge against a Quebec law excluding citizens under age 30 from receiving full social security benefits.

Contents

Background

Between 1984 and 1989, a period of alarming and growing unemployment among young adults, under section 29(a) of the Social Aid Regulation (Règlement sur l’aide sociale), the Quebec government provided those who were single, unemployed and under 30 years old with $170 per month in social assistance, which amounted to only a third of the regular benefits. Full benefits were only available if the individuals would participate in one of three employability programs: On-the-job Training, Community Work or Remedial Education. The objective behind it was to encourage youth to find work or go to school. According to the Supreme Court of Canada, the new scheme was based on the philosophy that the most effective way to encourage and enable young people to join the workforce was to make increased benefits conditional on participating in one of three of the workfare programs. [1]

Louise Gosselin was under age 30 during the period from 1984 to 1989. She struggled with psychological problems and drug and alcohol addictions and attempted to work as a cook, waitress, seller and nurses' assistant, among many other jobs. She was homeless periodically, lived in an unheated apartment for one winter, and when she rented a room at a boarding house, she was left with no money for food.

Gosselin brought a class action on behalf of 75,000 individuals against the Quebec government for violation of her section 15 equality rights and Section Seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms right to life, liberty and security of the person. As well, she claimed that her social rights in section 45 of the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated.

The Québec Court of Appeal was divided but ruled that the regulation did not violate the Canadian or Quebec Charter. Two judges found a violation of section 15 of the Canadian Charter, but only one found that it could not be saved by section 1. Another dissenting judge found a violation of section 45 of the Quebec Charter.

Supreme Court's opinion

The Supreme Court decided by 5–4 that there was no violation of section 15; by 7–2 that there was no violation of section 7; and by 6–1 that there was no violation of section 45 of the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms (two justices ruled that section 45 was unenforceable in this situation). The majority opinion was written by McLachlin CJ.

Section 15

McLachlin, with Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, and Binnie JJ concurring, found there was not violation of section 15.

In applying the analytical framework for section 15 from Law v Canada , McLachlin identified the government purpose was to promote short-term autonomy among youth. The government was attempting to create an incentive for young people to participate in employment programs.

McLachlin rejected the claim that the purpose "did not correspond to the actual needs and circumstances of the individuals" and that it effectively stereotyped youth. Rather it was "an affirmation of their potential". The majority found that youth do not suffer from any pre-existing disadvantage and were not more susceptible to negative preconceptions.

McLachlin found that there was not enough evidence of harmful effects of the law. Rather, the claimants were merely representative of some individuals who had "fallen through the cracks".

Furthermore, the majority found there was no evidence to show that those who wanted to participate in the employment programs were refused participation. Thus, there could be no finding of discrimination by adverse effects.

Section 7

McLachlin, with Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Binnie and LeBel JJ concurring, found that there was no violation of section 7.

The primary reason for McLachlin's finding that there was no violation was because Gosselin was unable to discharge her legal burden of proof.

[Ms. Gosselin had] not demonstrated that the government treated her as less worthy than older welfare recipients simply because it conditioned increased welfare payments on her participation in programs designed specifically to integrate her into the workforce and to promote her long-term selfsufficiency.

In examination of section 7, McLachlin also found that there was not enough evidence here either:

The question therefore is not whether section 7 has ever been —or will ever be— recognized as creating positive rights. Rather, the question is whether the present circumstances warrant a novel application of section 7 as the basis for a positive state obligation to guarantee adequate living standards.
I conclude that they do not.... I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence in this case to support the proposed interpretation of section 7. I leave open the possibility that a positive obligation to sustain life, liberty, or security of the person may be made out in special circumstances. However, this is not such a case. The impugned program contained compensatory "workfare" provisions, and the evidence of actual hardship is wanting. The frail platform provided by the facts of this case cannot support the weight of a positive state obligation of citizen support.

Dissenting opinions

Section 7

Arbour JJ held in dissent that section 7 places positive obligations on the government.

Section 15

Bastarache wrote the dissenting opinion on section 15 with L'Heureux-Dubé, Arbour and LeBel JJ concurring for the most part.

In Bastarache's opinion, when he considered the existence of any pre-existing disadvantages, he claims McLachlin's assumption that persons under 30 have an easier time finding work was a stereotype that young welfare recipients do not suffer any special disadvantages, as none of the facts suggests any such conclusion. He concedes that there is no evidence that youth are more disadvantaged than other welfare recipients, but the marginalized state of all welfare recipients warrants giving them extra consideration.

When examining the correspondence between the treatment of the claimant and her actual needs, Bastarache noted that law can differentiate only between groups when there is a genuine difference. On the facts, he saw no evidence of any real difference. He rejected the assumption that youth receive help from their families more than older people and found there is not enough difference to warrant reducing funding to create such substandard living conditions. That unjustified detriment alone should be sufficient to find a violation of section 15. He further rejected the suggestion that the government's good intention (it was "for their own good") should have any bearing on the reasoning despite McLachlin's claim otherwise. Such reasoning should be left to section 1 analysis.

Bastarache further took issue with the government's attempt to provide employment programs, as so few were able to stay in the program to receive full benefits. Less than 11% of youth on social assistance were in the program at any one time. Inevitably, all youth were forced to live on the third benefit for at least some period of time. It was because all youth suffered in such a precarious position that their dignity was harmed and equality rights violated.

In considering whether the violation could be saved under section 1, Bastarache acknowledged the need to give the government deference however, the government failed to show that the legislation was minimally impairing of the claimant's rights. There were many reasonable alternatives available that would not have caused as much harm to persons under 30. For example, there was no evidence that increased funding would have foiled the government's objective. Furthermore, Bastarache noted many flaws in the program's execution that resulted in significant harm.

Concurring opinion

Section 15

Justice Bastarache concurred with the majority finding that the law did not violate section 7 but offered a different reason for why that was the case:

The appellant ... argues that this Court has found that respect for human dignity underlies most if not all of the rights protected under the Charter. Undoubtedly, I agree that respect for the dignity of all human beings is an important, if not foundational, value in this or any society, and that the interpretation of the Charter may be aided by taking such values into account. However, this does not mean that the language of the Charter can be totally avoided by proceeding to a general examination of such values or that the court can through the process of judicial interpretation change the nature of the right. As held in Blencoe "[W]hile notions of dignity and reputation underlie many Charter rights, they are not stand-alone rights that trigger s. 7 in and of themselves." A purposive approach to Charter interpretation, while coloured by an overarching concern with human dignity, democracy and other such Charter values, must first and foremost look to the purpose of the section in question. Without some link to the language of the Charter, the legitimacy of the entire process of Charter adjudication is brought into question. [2]

See also

Related Research Articles

<i>Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 SCR 143 is the first Supreme Court of Canada case to deal with the equality rights provided under Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. British law graduate Mark David Andrews challenged the validity of Section 42 of the Barristers and Solicitors Act contending that the Canadian citizenship requirement for being called to the bar violated Section 15 of the Charter.

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada. There are three types of protection within the section: the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Denials of these rights are constitutional only if the denials do not breach what is referred to as fundamental justice.

Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains guaranteed equality rights. As part of the Constitution of Canada, the section prohibits certain forms of discrimination perpetrated by the governments of Canada with the exception of ameliorative programs.

<i>Chaoulli v Quebec (AG)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Chaoulli v Quebec (AG) [2005] 1 S.C.R. 791, 2005 SCC 35, was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada of which the Court ruled that the Quebec Health Insurance Act and the Hospital Insurance Act prohibiting private medical insurance in the face of long wait times, up to 9 months, violated the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. In a 4 to 3 decision, the Court found the Acts violated Quebecers' right to life and security of person under the Quebec Charter. The ruling is binding only in Quebec. Three of the seven judges also found that the laws violated section seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One judge did not rule on the Canadian Charter. The result was a 3–3 tie on the question of the Canadian Charter, so Chaoulli decision does not apply to any other province.

<i>Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v Canada (AG)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v Canada (AG), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 76, 2004 SCC 4 – known also as the spanking case – is a leading Charter decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where the Court upheld section 43 of the Criminal Code that allowed for a defence of reasonable use of force by way of correction towards children as not in violation of section 7, section 12 or section 15(1) of the Charter.

<i>Corbiere v Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Corbiere v Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs) [1999] 2 S.C.R. 203, is a leading case from the Supreme Court of Canada where the Court expanded the scope of applicable grounds upon which a section 15(1) Charter claim can be based. This was also the first case to use the framework proposed by Law v. Canada.

<i>R v Clay</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Clay [2003] 3 S.C.R. 735, 2003 SCC 75 is a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutionality of the prohibition to possess marijuana. The accused claimed that his section 7 Charter rights were violated. The Court dismissed the claim.

<i>R v Stillman</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Stillman [1997] 1 SCR 607, 1997 SCC 32 was a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section 24(2) of the Constitution of Canada which allowed for the exclusion of evidence that is obtained in a manner that infringes the Charter. The two-step Stillman test was developed for determining whether the admission of evidence that was obtained through a breach of a Charter right would affect the fairness of the trial. The issue of trial fairness comes into play when applying the first step of the Collins test to exclude evidence under section 24(2).

<i>Harper v Canada (AG)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Harper v Canada (AG), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 827, 2004 SCC 33, is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada wherein the Court ruled that Canada Elections Act's spending limits on third party election advertising did violate section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms but was justified under Section One of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<i>Blencoe v British Columbia (Human Rights Commission)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Blencoe v British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the scope of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and on the administrative law principle of natural justice.

<i>Dunmore v Ontario (AG)</i> 2001 Canadian Supreme Court decision on freedom of association

Dunmore v Ontario (AG), 2001 SCC 94 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the constitutional right to freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter"). The Court held that the lack of a positive framework that protected farm workers from employer reprisals for exercising their associational rights under the Charter constituted a "substantial interference" of their right to freedom of association. The Ontario government responded with the Agricultural Employees Protection Act, which extended only to agricultural workers and prohibited employer reprisals against employees exercising their rights under section 2(d) of the Charter.

<i>Gosselin (Tutor of) v Quebec (AG)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Gosselin v Quebec (AG), 2005 SCC 15, [2005] 1 SCR 238 is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutional protection of minority language rights under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Section 29 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifically addresses rights regarding denominational schools and separate schools. Section 29 is not the source of these rights but instead reaffirms the pre-existing special rights belonging to Roman Catholics and Protestants, despite freedom of religion and religious equality under sections 2 and 15 of the Charter. Such rights may include financial support from the provincial governments. In the case Mahe v. Alberta (1990), the Supreme Court of Canada also had to reconcile denominational school rights with minority language educational rights under section 23 of the Charter.

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

Lavoie v Canada, [2002] 1 SCR 769, 2002 SCC 23 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on whether preference on basis of citizenship infringed equality guarantee under section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court found that the federal Public Service Employment Act (PSEA), which gave preference to citizens when referring to departments, was discriminatory. The violation was saved under section 1 of the Charter as a reasonable limitation on equality rights.

<i>R v Bryan</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Bryan 2007 SCC 12 is a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on freedom of expression and Canadian federal elections. The Court upheld a law that prevented the publicizing of election results from some ridings before the polls closed in others.

<i>R v Kapp</i> 2008 Supreme Court of Canada decision

R v Kapp, 2008 SCC 41, is a Supreme Court of Canada decision that held that a communal fishing license granted exclusively to Aboriginals did not violate Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The case stemmed from an appeal by John Michael Kapp and a group of non-aboriginal commercial fishers who staged a "protest" fishery with the intention of being charged by law enforcement and challenging the constitutional status of an exclusive Aboriginal commercial fishing license.

<i>R v Kang-Brown</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Kang-Brown, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 456, 2008 SCC 18, is a constitutional decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the limits of police powers for search and seizure. The Court found that police do not have the right to perform a sniffer-dog search of public spaces when such search is not specifically authorized by statute. In this case, a suspect's section 8 rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") were violated when a police officer stopped him at a bus station and sniffer-dog searched his bag finding drugs in his possession.

<i>R v AM</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v AM, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 569, 2008 SCC 19, is a constitutional decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the limits of police powers for search and seizure. The Court found that police do not have the right to perform a sniffer-dog search of public spaces when such search is not specifically authorized by statute. In this case, a student's section 8 rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") were violated when a police officer sniffer-dog searched his unattended backpack in the gymnasium of his school finding drugs in his possession.

<i>Euro-Excellence Inc v Kraft Canada Inc</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Euro-Excellence Inc v Kraft Canada Inc, 2007 SCC 37, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 20, is a Supreme Court of Canada judgment on Canadian copyright law, specifically on the issue of indirect infringement and its application to parallel importation. Kraft Canada sued Euro-Excellence Inc. for copyright infringement due to their importation of Côte d’Or and Toblerone chocolate bars from Europe into Canada. A majority of the court found that the copyright claim could not succeed, although they split on whether the claim failed due to the rights of an exclusive licensee or due to the scope of copyright law.

<i>R v Advance Cutting & Coring Ltd</i> Canadian labour law case (SCC)

R v Advance Cutting & Coring Ltd. [2001] 3 SCR 209 is a Canadian labour law case concerning compulsory trade union membership in the Quebec construction industry. The Supreme Court of Canada considered the application of section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the Quebec law in question. A divided Court affirmed the law's constitutionality.

References

  1. ↑ Gosselin v Quebec (AG), [2002] 4 SCR 429, 2002 SCC 84 at paragraph 7.
  2. ↑ Gosselin v. Quebec (AG), [2002] 4 SCR 429, 2002 SCC 84 at paragraph 214.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.