ae913
Significant Decisions for Lesbians and Gays
Compiled by Timothy Ross Wilson
Note: several of the most recent decisions are under appeal.
Marriage is reserved to opposite-sex couples
Corbett v. Corbett, [1970] 2 All E.R. 33 (P.D.A.)
B. v. A. (1991), 29 R.F.L. (3d) 258 (Ont. S.C.)
Adams and Sullivan v. Howerton (1980), 486 Fed. Supp. 1119 (U.S. Dist.
Ct.)
Anderson v. Luoma (1986), 50 R.F.L. (2d) 127 (B.C.S.C.)
Re Andrews et al. and Minister of Health for Ontario et al. (1988), 64
O.R. (2d) 258 (Ont. H.C.)
Layland v. Ontario (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations) (17
March 1993, Action No. 234/92, Ont. Div. Ct.) [unreported].
Discrimination on the basis of family status cannot be interpreted to include
discrimination against same-sex couples since at the time of the inclusion of the
family status ground in the Canadian Human Rights Act in 1983, Parliament
specifically decided not to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of
discrimination.  (Note that the Canadian Human Rights Act was modified by
judicial intervention in Haig infra.)
Attorney General (Canada) v. Mossop, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 554
Sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination under the
Charter and the Canadian Human Rights Act is unconstitutional for excluding
sexual orientation as a prohibited ground.  Therefore, sexual orientation
is to be read into the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Haig and Birch v. Canada (1992), 9 O.R. (3d) 495 (C.A.)
The definition of spouse in the Old Age Security Act does not violate
section 15 of the Charter and is therefore constitutional.  Two men who
have lived together as a couple for over 45 years do not fall into the
category of spouses.
Egan v. Canada (1993), 103 D.L.R. (4th) 336 (F.C.A.)
Homosexuality is not in itself a ground for refusing custody.
Case v. Case (1974), 18 R.F.L. 132 (Sask. Q.B.)
Bezaire v. Bezaire (1980), 20 R.F.L. (2d) 358 (Ont. C.A.)
Re Barkley and Barkley (1980), 28 O.R. (2d) 136 (Prov. Ct.)
N. v. N., [1992] B.C.J. No. 1507 (S.C.) (QL)
Homosexuality is viewed as a negative factor in determining custody.
Bernhardt v. Bernhardt (1979), 10 R.F.L. (2d) 32 (Man. Q.B.)
Worby v. Worby (1985), 48 R.F.L. (2d) 369 (Sask. Q.B.)
Saunders v. Saunders (1989), 20 R.F.L. (3d) 368 (B.C. Co. Ct.)
Homosexuality is no more of a bar to a parent obtaining custody than is
the fact of the other parent's drug use.
K. v. K. (1975), 23 R.F.L. 58 (Alta. Prov. Ct.)
Same-sex couples can only rely on the doctrine of constructive trust for
purposes of property division upon the breakdown of a relationship
Anderson v. Luoma (1986), 50 R.F.L. (2d) (B.C.S.C.)
Brunet v. Davis, [1992] O.J. No. 1586 (Gen. Div.) (QL)
Homosexual couples are not similarly situated to heterosexual couples who
procreate and raise children.  Therefore same-sex couples are not entitled
to the benefits accorded to married couples.
Re Andrews et al. and Minister of Health for Ontario et al. (1988), 64
O.R. (2d) 258 (Ont. H.C.)
Note: the similarly situated test was rejected by the Supreme Court of
Canada in Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia (1989), 56 D.L.R.
(4th) 1 (S.C.C.).
A legislative definition of spouse which does not include same-sex partners
constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and is not
justified under section 1 of the Charter.
Knodel v. British Columbia (Medical Services Commission) (1991), 58
B.C.L.R. (2d) 356.
Sexual orientation has been conceded by counsel for the government as being an
analogous ground of discrimination.
Veysey v. Correctional Services of Canada (1990), 109 N.R. 300 (F.C.A.)
The courts have the ability to make rulings, pursuant to subsection 24(1) of the
Charter, that impose financial burdens on governments.
Schachter v. Canada, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679
A same-sex couple is the legal equivalent of a family.  (United States)
Braschi v. Stahl Associates Company (1989), 74 N.Y. (2d) 201 (N.Y.C.A.)
The denial of bereavement leave and family related leave to a same-sex
spouse constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and is not
justified under section 1 of the Charter.
Lorenzen v. Treasury Board, Public Service Staff Relations Board File
Numbers 166-2-23963 and 166-2-24000 (Galipeau) June of 1993.
The denial of employment benefits to same-sex common-law spouses constitutes
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and is not justified under
section 1 of the Charter.
Guevremont and the Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada Post
Corporation, Arbitration Decision, Vancouver, B.C., March 8, 1994
The denial of spousal benefits to the homosexual partner of a homosexual
government employee under certain government plans does not constitute
discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, sex, marital status or
family status.
Vogel v. Manitoba, [1992] M.J. No. 102 (Q.B.) (QL)
The Ontario Human Rights Code is in violation of section 15 of the Charter
because it defines marital status as "the status of being married, single,
widowed, divorced or separated and includes the status of living with a person
of the opposite sex in a conjugal relationship outside marriage".  The denial of
survivor benefits to same-sex couples is a violation of the Charter.  Neither
violation is justified under section 1 of the Charter.
Leshner v. Ontario, Ontario Human Rights Board of Inquiry, 1992 (QL)
Ontario Blue Cross is in violation of section 15 of the Charter because it does
not extend health benefits to same-sex spouses.  The violation is not justified
under section 1 of the Charter.
Clinton v. Blue Cross et al., Ontario Human Rights Commission Board of
Inquiry, No. 92-00112/113, July 14, 1993.
A gay public servant is not entitled to marriage leave with pay as a result of
a marriage ceremony in which he participated with his male partner.
Hewens v. Treasury Board, Public Service Staff Relations Board File No.
1662-2-22733, November 25, 1992.
The military's former policy regarding the service of homosexuals was contrary
to the Charter.
Douglas v. The Queen, [1992] F.C.J. No. 1100 (T.D.) (QL)
The Individual Rights Protection Act (Alberta) violates section 15 of the Charter
because it does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
The violation is not justified under section 1.  Sexual orientation is therefore
read into the Act.
Vriend v. Alberta, [1994] A.J. No. 272 (QL)