Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

Volumn 40, Issue 3-4, 2002, Pages 223-249

  Cossman, Brenda ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Canada; Canada. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; Etc; Gay men Legal status; Laws; Lesbians Legal status

Indexed keywords

EID: 65349196397     PISSN: None     EISSN: 28175069     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.60082/2817-5069.1436     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. Part I of the Constitution Act. 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11 [Charter].
2. See e.g. Donald G. Casswell, “Moving Toward Same-Sex Marriage” (2001) 80 Can. Bar Rev. 810; Donald G. Casswell, “Any Two Persons in Canada’s Lotusland, British Columbia” in Robert Wintemute & Mads Andenaes, eds., Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Partnerships: A Study in National, European and International Law (Oxford: Hart, 2001) 215; Kathleen A. Lahey, Are We “Persons" Yet?: Law and Sexuality in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999).
3. See Ranier Knopf & F.L. Morton, Charter Politics (Scarborough: Nelson, 1992); Ranier Knopf & F.L. Morton, The Charter Revolution and the Court Party (Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2000).
4. See e.g. Didi Herman, Rights of Passage: Struggles for Lesbian and Gay Legal Equality (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994) [Herman, Rights of Passage]; Carl F. Stychin, Law’s Desire: Sexuality and the Limits of Justice (London: Routledge, 1995); Carl F. Stychin, “Essential Rights and Contested Identities: Sexual Orientation and Equality Rights Jurisprudence in Canada” (1995) 8 Can. J.L. & Jur. 49; Susan B. Boyd, “Family, Law and Sexuality: Feminist Engagements” (1999) 8 Social and Legal Studies 369 [Boyd, “Family, Law and Sexuality”].
5. Shelley A.M. Gavigan “Morgentaler and Beyond: Abortion, Reproduction and the Courts” in Janine Brodie, Shelley A.M. Gavigan & Jane Jenson, The Politics of Abortion (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1992) at 126.
6. See generally Jeffrey Weeks, “The Sexual Citizen” in Mike Featherstone, ed., Love and Eroticism (London: Sage, 1999) 35; Carl F. Stychin, “Sexual Citizenship in the European Union” (2001) 5 Citizenship Studies 285-320; Carl F. Stychin, A Nation by Rights: National Cultures, Sexual Identity Politics, and the Discourse of Rights (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1998).
7. Andrews v. Ontario (Minister of Health) (1988), 49 D.L.R. (4th) 584 (Ont. H.C.J.) [Andrews].
8. Layland v. Ontario (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations) (1993), 104 D.L.R. (4th) 214 at 222-23 (Ont. Ct. Gen. Div.) [Layland].
9. For cases following the conservative approach, see e.g. Vogel v. Manitoba (1992), 90 D.L.R. (4th) 84 (Man. Q.B.), rev’d (1995) 126 D.L.R. (4th) 72 (Man. C.A.); Canada (A.G.) v. Mossop (1990), 71 D.L.R. (4th) 661 (F.C.A.); and, most recently, EGALE Canada Inc. v. Canada (A.G.), [2001] B.C.J. No. 1995 (S.C.) (QL). For cases following the progressive approach, see e.g. Veysey v. Canada (Commissioner of the Correctional Service), [1990] 1 F.C. 321 (T.D.); Knodel v. British Columbia (Medical Services Commission) (1991), 58 B.C.L.R. (2d) 356 (S.C.); Vogel v. Manitoba (1995), 126 D.L.R. (4th) 72 (Man. C.A.). For divided cases, see Egan v. Canada (1993), 103 D.L.R. (4th) 336 (F.C.A.), aff'd [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513 [Egan], and M. v. H. (1996), 142 D.L.R. (4th) 1 (Ont. C.A.), aff’d [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3 [M. v. H.].
10. “The Impact of the Supreme Court Decision in Egan v. Canada Upon Claims for the Equal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships,” online: EGALE Canada .
11. Mossop v. Canada (A.G.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 554 at 555 [Mossop].
12. R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6 [Human Rights Act].
13. Haig v. Canada (1992), 9 O.R. (3d) 495 (C.A.).
14. See Jody Freeman, “Defining Family in Mossop v. DSS: The Challenge of Anti-essentialism and Interactive Discrimination for Human Rights Litigation” (1994) 44 U.T.L.J. 41.
15. See ibid.; Brenda Cossman & Bruce Ryder, “What is Marriage-Like Like? The Irrelevance of Conjugality” (2001) 18 Can. J. Farn. L. 269 [Cossman & Ryder, “What is Marriage-Like Like?”].
16. See Freeman, supra note 14. See also Nitya Iyer, “Categorical Denials: Equality Rights and the Shaping of Social Identity” (1993) 19 Queen’s L.J. 179.
17. See Herman, Rights of Passage, supra note 4 at 60-61, an interview with Brian Mossop.
18. Miriam Smith, Lesbian and Gay Rights in Canada: Social Movements and Equality-Seeking, 1971-1995 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999) at 91.
19. R.S.C. 1985, c. O-9.
20. Egan, supra note 9.
21. Supra note 19, s. 2.
22. Egan, supra note 9 at 516.
23. Ibid. at 515. See Lori G. Beaman, “Sexual Orientation and Legal Discourse: Legal Constructions of the ‘Normal’ Family” (1999), 14 C.J.L.S. 173, who emphasizes the extent to which this dissenting opinion, alongside Justice Sopinka’s opinion, operated to reproduce dominant truths about the normal family.
24. Carl F. Stychin, “Novel Concepts: A Comment on Egan and Nesbit v. the Queen" (1995) 6:4 Const. Forum Const. 101 at 105. See also Herman, Rights of Passage, supra note 4.
25. See Smith, supra note 18 at 92.
26. As Stychin has observed, supra note 24 at 105, the arguments for same-sex state benefits provided very little room for a critique of the allocation of rights and responsibilities on the basis of family status.
27. 1 S.C.R. 493.
28. R.S.A. 1980, c. 1-2 [IRPA].
29. Justice Major dissented from the majority opinion on this issue of remedy. In his view, the Alberta government may prefer to have no human rights code at all rather than to have to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground. In his view, this was a choice better left to the legislature.
30. Vriend v. Alberta (1996), 181 A.R. 16 (C.A.).
31. Ibid. at 26.
32. Ibid. at 31.
33. Rebecca Johnson & Thomas Kuttner, “Treading on Dicey Ground” in Carl Stychin & Didi Herman, eds., Sexuality in the Legal Arena (London: Athlone Press, 2000) 181.
34. Joe Woodard, “A Narrow Decision?” British Columbia Report (20 April 1998) 24. However, Klein did defend the Court’s ruling, specifically stating that it is “morally wrong to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” See Joe Woodard, “Ralph gets moral, and Alberta gets gay rights: How Klein snookered public opinion to satisfy homosexuals, the Supreme Court and the media” Alberta Report (20 April 1998) at 17.
35. See e.g. David Frum, “Regulating Freedom of Conscience: Our Rule of Law is Lacking Objectivity” The Financial Post (21 April 1998) 19; K. Steel, “One Surrender Too Many: Klein’s Capitulation on Vriend Prompts Talk of a Right-wing Revolt” British Columbia Report (4 May 1998) 13; K. Steel, “Rally ‘round the family: Sceptical of Klein’s promised ‘fences’: CFAC keeps the heat on with rallies and a petition” Alberta Report (25 May 1998) 9.
36. R.S.A. 2000, c. C-25.
37. M. v. H., supra note 9.
38. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3 [FLA].
39. Ibid.
40. M. v. H. y supra note 9 at 57.
41. Ibid. at 57-58.
42. Ibid. at 7.
43. Ibid.
44. Ibid. at 67. See also ibid. at 72.
45. Ibid. at 10. See also Brenda Cossman & Bruce Ryder, “M. v. H.: Time to Clean up your Acts” (1999) 10:3 Const. Forum Const. 59, on the unpersuasive reasoning on remedy.
46. M. v. H. y supra note 9 at 87.
47. See Brenda Cossman, “Family Feuds: Neo Liberal and Neo Conservative Visions of the Reprivatization Project” in Brenda Cossman & Judy Fudge, eds., Privatization, Law and the Challenge to Feminism (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, forthcoming 2002) [Cossman, “Family Feuds”].
48. S.O. 1999, c. 6.
49. S.C. 2000, c. 12 [Modernization Act].
50. At the federal level, see ibid. At the provincial level: British Columbia: Definition of Spouse Amendment Act, 2000, S.B.C. 2000, c. 24; Alberta: Bill 30, Adult Interdependent Relationships Act, 2d Sess., 25th Leg., Alberta, 2002; Saskatchewan: Miscellaneous Statutes (Domestic Relations) Amendment Act, 2001, S.S. 2001, c. 50 and Miscellaneous Statutes (Domestic Relations) Amendment Act, 2001 (No. 2) S.S. 2001, c. 51; Manitoba: Act to Comply with the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in M. v. H., S.M. 2001, c. 37; Quebec: An Act to Amend Various Legislative Provisions Concerning de facto Spouses, S.Q. 1999, c. 14 and An Act Instituting Civil Unions and Establishing New Rules of Filiation, S.Q. 2002, c. 6; New Brunswick: An Act to Amend the Family Services Act, S.N.B. 2000, c. 59; Nova Scotia: Law Reform (2000) Act, S.N.S. 2000, c. 29; Newfoundland: An Act to Amend the Family Law Act, S.N. 2000, c. 29.
51. Cossman, “Family Feuds,” supra note 47.
52. See Boyd, “Family, Law and Sexuality,” supra note 4, discussing the intervention of LEAF in M. v. H., supra note 9.
53. Quoted in Carmen Wittmeier, “Playing House: Politicians Cower as the Supreme Court Overrides the Natural Family Order’’Alberta Report (31 May 1999) 20 at 24.
54. Ibid.
55. House of Commons Debates, 36'b Parliament, 1“Session, 240 (8 June 1999) at 1020.
56. Modernization Act, supra note 49, s. 1.1. Alberta went further, passing the Marriage Amendment Act, S.A. 2000, c. 3, which defined marriage as “a marriage between a man and a woman,” and invoked the notwithstanding clause, providing that the law overrode the provisions in sections 2 and 7-15 of the Charter.
57. See Susan B. Boyd, “Best Friends or Spouses? Privatization and the Recognition of Lesbian Relationships in Mv. H’ (1996) 13 Can. J. Fam. L. 321; Boyd, “Family, Law and Sexuality,” supra note 4; Cossman, “Family Feuds,” supra note 47.
58. M. v. H., supra note 9 at 69.
59. See supra note 47. See also Judy Fudge & Brenda Cossman, “Introduction: Privatization, Law and the Challenge to Feminism” in Cossman & Fudge, supra note 47 [Fudge & Cossman, “Challenge to Feminism”].
60. Cossman & Ryder,“What is Marriage-Like Like?,” supra note 15.
61. M. v. H., supra note 9 at 50 (citing Molodowich v. Penttinen (1980), 17 R.F.L. (2d) 376 (Ont. Dist. Ct.)).
62. See Law Commission of Canada, Beyond Conjugality: Recognizing and Supporting Close Personal Adult Relationships (Ottawa: Law Commission of Canada, 2001). See also Cossman & Ryder, “What is Marriage-Like Like?,” supra note 15.
63. 2 S.C.R. 1120 [Little Sisters].
64. Customs Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2d Supp.), c. 1, s. 1; Customs Tariff, R.S.C. 1985 (3d Supp.), c. 41, as rep. by Customs Tariff, S.C. 1997, c. 36, s. 213.
65. R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.
66. Little Sisters, supra note 63 at 1125.
67. Ibid.
68. Ibid. at 1202.
69. R. v. Butler, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452 [Butler].
70. Little Sisters Bookstore and Art Emporium v. Canada, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1120 (Factum of the Appellant at 61-73). For a discussion of this issue and the Court’s refusal to place lesbian and gay materials into context, see Joe-Anne Pickle, “Taking Big Brother to Court: Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice)” (2001) 59 U.T. Fac. L. Rev. 349.
71. J.-F. Gaudreault-Desbiens, “Gaston Bachelard and Legal Theory” (Paper presented at the American Law and Society Association and Canadian Law and Society Association, Joint Conference, Vancouver, May 2002) [unpublished].
72. In recent years, the Toronto police have raided and laid charges at Remington’s (a gay strip club), The Bijou (a gay porn bar), The Barn (a gay bar holding a special event for a men’s nudist organization), and Pussy Palace (a special-events lesbian bathhouse). Criminal charges were laid against Remington’s (convicted of indecent performance) and The Bijou (charges later dropped), whereas violations pursuant to the Liquor License Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L. 19, were charged against The Barn (acquitted) and Pussy Palace (charges stayed due to violation of constitutional rights).
73. William N. Eskridge Jr., Equality Practice: Civil Unions and the Future of Gay Rights (New Y ork: Routledge, 2002) at 1.
74. See Bruce Ryder, “The Little Sisters Case, Administrative Censorship, and Obscenity Law” (2001), 39 Osgoode Hall L.J. 207.
75. 1 S.C.R. 772 [Trinity Western].
76. Ibid. at 785.
77. Ibid. at 775.,
78. In Hall (Litigation Guardian of) v. Powers (2002), 213 D.L.R. (4th) 308 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.), 19-year-old Mark Hall won an injunction against the Durham Catholic District School Board, allowing him to bring his same-sex boyfriend to his high school prom. The school board refused to grant him permission because homosexuality is against the teachings of the Catholic Church. While an Ontario court granted the injunction, the issue remains unresolved, as the school board considers whether to pursue the matter. At issue is the scope of religious liberties of the Catholic schools, protected under section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11. See also Brockie v. Ontario (H.R.C.), [2001] O.J. No. 5316 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J.) (QL); Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No. 36 (2000), 80 B.C.L.R. (3d) 181 (C.A.), appeal heard by Supreme Court of Canada, 12 June 2002.
79. See Herman, Rights of Passage, supra note 4; Didi Herman, The Antigay Agenda: Orthodox Vision and the Christian Right (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997).
80. Eskridge, supra note 73 at 9-12.
81. Fudge & Cossman, “Challenge to Feminism,” supra note 59.
82. Boyd, “Family, Law and Sexuality,” supra note 4.
83. See Brenda Cossman, “Feminist Fashion or Sexual Morality in Drag” in Brenda Cossman et al., eds., Bad Attitude/s on Trial: Pornography, Feminism and the Butler Decision (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997).