Section 15 in the charter of rights and freedoms
· 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Egan v. Canada
James Egan and John Norris Nesbit, the plaintiffs, were a gay couple who had been in relationship since 1948. When reaching age 65 in 1986, Egan became eligible to receive old age security and a guaranteed income supplement from the government under the Old Age Security Act.
The Old Age Security Act provides that a spouse of the pensioner may receive a spousal allowance should their combined income fall below a certain amount. When Nesbit reached 65, he applied to the Department of National Health and Welfare for a spousal allowance. However, he was refused on the basis that spouse, defined in section 2 of Old Age Security Act, did not include a member of the same sex.
The case reached the Supreme Court but in the end was dismissed. The court came to the conclusion that the deffination of "spouse" was not being violated due to the fact that Egan and Nesbit were not married.
"firmly anchored in the biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate, that most children are the product of these relationships, and that they are generally cared for and nurtured by those who live in that relationship. In this sense, marriage is by nature heterosexual" said La forrest, one of the 9 judges.
Egan v. Canada, was one of a trilogy of equality rights cases published the Supreme Court of Canada in the spring of 1995. It stands today as a landmark Supreme Court case which established that sexual orientation constitutes a prohibited basis of discrimination under Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
James Egan and John Norris Nesbit, the plaintiffs, were a gay couple who had been in relationship since 1948. When reaching age 65 in 1986, Egan became eligible to receive old age security and a guaranteed income supplement from the government under the Old Age Security Act.
The Old Age Security Act provides that a spouse of the pensioner may receive a spousal allowance should their combined income fall below a certain amount. When Nesbit reached 65, he applied to the Department of National Health and Welfare for a spousal allowance. However, he was refused on the basis that spouse, defined in section 2 of Old Age Security Act, did not include a member of the same sex.
The case reached the Supreme Court but in the end was dismissed. The court came to the conclusion that the deffination of "spouse" was not being violated due to the fact that Egan and Nesbit were not married.
"firmly anchored in the biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate, that most children are the product of these relationships, and that they are generally cared for and nurtured by those who live in that relationship. In this sense, marriage is by nature heterosexual" said La forrest, one of the 9 judges.
Egan v. Canada, was one of a trilogy of equality rights cases published the Supreme Court of Canada in the spring of 1995. It stands today as a landmark Supreme Court case which established that sexual orientation constitutes a prohibited basis of discrimination under Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Analysis
In my opinion, this case should not have dismissed. Nesbit should not have been denied his spousel allowance. Just because they were homosexual, did not mean they were not in a committed relationship. Just the fact that they were in a relationship from 1948 to 1986 shows that they were more committed in their relationship than many of the heterosexual couples. this is more than enough grounds to grant him his spousal allowance, yet he was denied based on a technicality.
In my opinion, this case should not have dismissed. Nesbit should not have been denied his spousel allowance. Just because they were homosexual, did not mean they were not in a committed relationship. Just the fact that they were in a relationship from 1948 to 1986 shows that they were more committed in their relationship than many of the heterosexual couples. this is more than enough grounds to grant him his spousal allowance, yet he was denied based on a technicality.
Equality Rights Today
On July 20, 2005, Canada became the fourth country in the world, and the first country outside Europe, to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide with the enactment of the Civil Marriage Act which provided a gender-neutral marriage definition. Court decisions, starting in 2003, had already legalized same-sex marriage in eight out of ten provinces and one of three territories.
Discrimination against homosexuality does still exist today. It is something that is looked down upon by many even in this day and time.
An example of this can be shown in a recent article by the Toronto Star that was published september o4 2013.
On July 20, 2005, Canada became the fourth country in the world, and the first country outside Europe, to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide with the enactment of the Civil Marriage Act which provided a gender-neutral marriage definition. Court decisions, starting in 2003, had already legalized same-sex marriage in eight out of ten provinces and one of three territories.
Discrimination against homosexuality does still exist today. It is something that is looked down upon by many even in this day and time.
An example of this can be shown in a recent article by the Toronto Star that was published september o4 2013.
The article talks about a case based on discrimination against a homosexual prison guard in Ottawa.
Ranger, the homosexual prison guard received $98,000 in damages for harassment related to his sexual orientation.
He filed a complaint at the Ottawa jail stating that he was working in a poisoned environment. He was constantly made fun and received hateful emails. Further investigation into the matter also showed that the other workers would make homosexual actions that were intended to provoke rangers actions.
It took 4.5 years and 66 hearing for ranger to get the justice he deserved
Ranger, the homosexual prison guard received $98,000 in damages for harassment related to his sexual orientation.
He filed a complaint at the Ottawa jail stating that he was working in a poisoned environment. He was constantly made fun and received hateful emails. Further investigation into the matter also showed that the other workers would make homosexual actions that were intended to provoke rangers actions.
It took 4.5 years and 66 hearing for ranger to get the justice he deserved