preview

Delwin Vriend Case Summary

Decent Essays

The appellant Delwin Vriend’s employment as a laboratory operator at the King’s College in Edmonton was terminated after he revealed that he was homosexual. Despite Vriend’s great work performance, his termination appeal and reinstatement was rejected (Vriend v. Alberta, 1998 at para 7). Since discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation was not included in the ss. 2(1), 3, 4, 7(1), 8(1), 10 and 16(1) of the Individual’s Rights Protection Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. I 2, am., now Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. H 11.7, Vriend with some organizations argued that the IRPA violates s.15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court of Canada held that IRPA create distinction on the …show more content…

The discrimination against sexual orientation is protected under the analogous ground of s.15 (1) of Charter. In this case, an Act created a distinction on the analogous ground against gays, lesbians and other disadvantage groups and resulted in disadvantage. The s.15 (1) of Charter guarantee equal protection and benefits before and under the law without discrimination but in this case the human right law did not equally benefited or protected the gays and lesbians. Furthermore, if there is any law that discriminate some individuals or groups of people, the equality rights protects them from that discrimination. For instance, without the equality rights, people like Vriend would not have received equal treatment. It is also relevant because the SCC had set the precedents for lower courts and decision prevent further discrimination against …show more content…

H, 1999, para 9 &13). After separation, M “sought an order for partition and sale of the house and other relief” and spousal support under the Family Law Act” (para14). Both M and H settled their financial disputes (para18). However, M challenged the s.29 of the FLA and argued that definition of spouse in the act was only apply to heterosexual married couples and to unmarried couples who cohabited for maximum for three year (para 50) .The Supreme Court of Canada held that the s.15 (1) of the Charter is infringed by the Family Law Act. Further, the impugned legislation is not saved under s. 1 of the Charter (134). In addition, the FLA constructs distinction between the same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples that resulted in unequal benefits and protection to the claimants and also make same-sex couples vulnerable (para 62, 69). The Supreme Court of Canada declared remedy and gave Ontario six month to change the definition of the spouse (147).
This case is relevant because the Family Law Act violated the same-sex couples’ equality right. The s.15 (1) of the Charter that protects dignity of individuals and provides equality to all people were violated in this case. The same-sex couples were not benefited under the FLA because of their sexual orientation. Further, sexual orientation discrimination is protecting under the analogous

Get Access