TITLE

Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)

AUTHOR(S)
R´┐Żaume, Denise
PUB. DATE
June 2006
SOURCE
Canadian Journal of Women & the Law;2006, Vol. 18 Issue 1, p143
SOURCE TYPE
Academic Journal
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
The judgment of the Women's Court of Canada in Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) traces the emergence of dignity as the touchstone of section 15 equality rights, and reviews the factors relevant to finding a violation of dignity from the Supreme Court of Canada's 1999 decision in Law. These factors are reinterpreted as pointing to three forms of indignity that may be inflicted by law or policy: grounding law or policy in prejudice, the use of, or reliance on, stereotype, and exclusion from dignity-constituting benefits. In analyzing the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) limitation on eligibility for a spousal survivor's pension to those over age thirty-five, the Women's Court finds that the exclusive focus on the age-related differential treatment in the courts below provides an incomplete picture of the program and its rationale. The vast majority of survivor pension recipients are women, and this part of the CPP cannot be properly understood or evaluated absent this gendered context. Denying any assistance to those under a certain age differentially affects mainly women in that age group. Further, the assumption that losing a spouse causes no financial hardship to younger survivors, even in the short term, adopts a male norm by treating as typical of younger spouses those who are employed and fully self-sufficient. Given the roadblocks women typically encounter in their efforts to be self-sufficient, the financial dislocation due to a spouse's death may easily be severe enough to impair women's ability to live lives of dignity and be full participants in society. Accordingly, the Women's Court reverses the Supreme Court decision, and holds that the CPP survivor pension scheme is discriminatory on the combined basis of age and sex. Based on the arguments put forward in the courts below, the legislation cannot be saved under section 1.
ACCESSION #
28861352

 

Related Articles

  • Litigation privilege: transient or timeless? Blank v Canada (Minister of Justice). Goudkamp, James // International Journal of Evidence & Proof;Dec2007, Vol. 11 Issue 4, p322 

    The article presents an opinion on the Canada Supreme Court's judgment in the case entitled "Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice)", regarding litigation privilege. The Supreme Court ruled that litigation privilege ends when the proceedings that gave rise to it are completed. The implications of...

  • Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education. Pothier, Dianne // Canadian Journal of Women & the Law;2006, Vol. 18 Issue 1, p121 

    In Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education, the Women's Court of Canada reverses the 1997 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, which rejected a presumption of integrated education for disabled students. The Women's Court finds that although the Supreme Court did not actually invoke the...

  • Danier, D&O and Disclosure. Bourk, Patrick; Pepper, Garth // Canadian Underwriter;Dec2007, Vol. 74 Issue 12, p52 

    The article discusses the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada which was issued on October 12, 2007, and awarded costs against the plaintiff in the case of Kerr v. Danier Leather Inc., and its impact on directors and officers (D&O) insurers. The plaintiffs, a class action group of investors,...

  • DISCARDING REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS OF PRIVACY: A CRITIQUE OF R. V. PATRICK. MACKINNON, WILLIAM // Alberta Law Review;Jun2010, Vol. 47 Issue 4, p1037 

    This article discusses the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in a case about privacy. The defendant claimed a reasonable expectation of privacy in his garbage when the authorities filed charges against him. Police officers evidence of drug production in the content of his garbage. They...

  • Seaboyer v. R.: A Case Comment. Shaffer, Martha // Canadian Journal of Women & the Law;1992, Vol. 5 Issue 1, p202 

    In R. v. Seaboyer; R. v. Gayme, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down section 276 of the Criminal Code, the so-called rape shield provision, which restricted the introduction of evidence of the complainant's sexual past in sexual assault cases. After reviewing the Court's decision, the author...

  • The Supreme Court of Canada's Decision in Fraser: Stepping Forward, Backward or Sideways? Barrett, Steven // Canadian Labour & Employment Law Journal;2012, Vol. 16 Issue 2, p331 

    The article focuses on the doctrinal practices and the ramifications with respect to the decision of the Supreme Court of the country on the court case Ontario (Attorney General) v. Fraser and Health Services and Support-Facilities Subsector Bargaining Ass'n v. British Columbia. The cases were...

  • The Effect of Pre-Legislative Consultation after Fraser. MacDonald, Diane // Canadian Labour & Employment Law Journal;2012, Vol. 16 Issue 2, p375 

    The article presents information on the right to collective bargaining with respect to the decision of the Supreme Court of the country on the court cases Health Services and Support-Facilities Subsector Bargaining Ass'n v. British Columbia and Ontario (Attorney General) v. Fraser. The decision...

  • Minors and Health Care: A.C. v. Manitoba. Robertson, Elizabeth C. // LawNow;Jul/Aug2010, Vol. 34 Issue 6, p14 

    The article discusses the implications of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to the A.C. v. Manitoba, a case which shows the limitation of a minor's right to refuse medical care. It states that the Court's decision to this case is considered as very important especially in the aspect of...

  • Standing Apart: Separate Concurrence and the Modern Supreme Court of Canada, 1984-2006. McCormick, Peter // McGill Law Journal;Spring2008, Vol. 53 Issue 1, p137 

    The article focuses on the Modern Supreme Court of Canada, and separate concurrences as a common feature of common law court decisions. From the results of the analysis of the use of separate concurrences by the Supreme Court of Canada under Chief Justices Dickson, Lamer and McLachlin, the...

Share

Read the Article

Other Topics