Article 1 (definition of discrimination)
I. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Adverse effects discrimination
6. Section 15 (equality rights) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides women with protection against adverse effects discrimination as well as direct or intentional discrimination. For example, in Dartmouth-Halifax County Regional Housing Authority v. Sparks, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal held that provisions of the Nova Scotia Residential Tenancy Act which gave residential tenants security of tenure after five years possession, but expressly denied the benefit to public housing tenants, breached s. 15. The plaintiff was a single black mother on welfare assistance. The Court relied on statistical evidence about the composition of the class of public housing tenants to conclude that the legislation discriminated on the basis of race, sex and income. The decision was not appealed by the Attorney General of Nova Scotia. See also paras. 24, 34, 36, 42, 43 and 48.
Marital status
7. The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that s. 15 (equality rights) of the Charter extends to grounds analogous to those enumerated within it. In Miron v. Trudel, the Court concluded that marital status was an analogous ground, so that discrimination against common law spouses is contrary to s. 15 and requires justification under s. 1 (reasonable limits) of the Charter.
8. In the lower courts, s. 15 has been held to preclude discrimination against members of the following groups: unwed mothers and their children (Panko v. Vandesype); and single female parents (R. v. Rehberg).
Sexual orientation
9. In Egan v. Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that sexual orientation was an analogous ground under s. 15 of the Charter.
10. In Haig v. The Queen, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that s. 15 was violated by the failure of the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation as a ground of discrimination. In Douglas v. The Queen, the plaintiff alleged that her dismissal from the Armed Forces because she was homosexual violated s. 15. The parties, after negotiations, agreed upon a draft judgment stating that s. 15 had been breached, which was signed by the Federal Court, Trial Division.
II. Human rights legislation
Reasonable accommodation
11. In regard to adverse effects discrimination, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that human rights codes require employers to make reasonable accommodation to the needs of those protected by them. Some human rights codes make specific provision for reasonable accommodation for direct and indirect discrimination. In recent cases, the Supreme Court of Canada has applied the duty of reasonable accommodation to unions and collective agreements, and emphasized that it means making genuine efforts, beyond mere negligible effort, and may involve minor inconvenience to other employees (Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud, Commission Scolaire R‚gionale de Chambly v. Bergevin).
12. In Emrick Plastics v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), the Ontario Court (Divisional Court) held that the employer had not made reasonable accommodation to a pregnant employee, a spray painter, when it declined to transfer her to the packing area, away from paint fumes which could be harmful to her during pregnancy.
13. In Brown v. Department of National Revenue (Customs and Excise), a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal concluded that the employer discriminated against one of its customs inspectors because of her sex and marital status when it failed to accommodate her need for a change to straight dayshifts because of complications of pregnancy and childcare needs.
Goods, services and facilities available to the public
14. In University of British Columbia v. Berg, the Supreme Court of Canada gave human rights legislation a broad application in one of the main areas covered by it, the provision of goods, services and facilities available to the public. The Court stated that it encompasses not just services and facilities available to all members of the public, but also those offered to smaller, more restricted groups for example, in the circumstances of that case, services and facilities provided by a university to a graduate student suffering from depression.
Article 1- Links to Convention text and other
sections
CONV |
QC
Article 2 (basic measures)
I. Criminal law
(a) Women subjected to violence
Substance of offences
15. In R. v. D.(F), the Ontario Court of Appeal held that a provision of the Criminal Code making it an offence for a man to have sexual intercourse with his step daughter (since repealed) did not involve discrimination on the basis of sex contrary to s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
16. In Daviault v. The Queen, in the context of a sexual assault of a 65 year old disabled woman by a man in an extreme state of intoxication, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that the mental element is an integral part of crime, and that to eliminate it would be contrary to the principles of fundamental justice in s. 7 and the presumption of innocence in s. 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court further concluded that the basic intent required for the offence of sexual assault was negated by evidence of extreme intoxication akin to automatism or insanity. The Court emphasized that only in rare circumstances would this defence be available, and that the burden would be on the accused person to establish the defence on a balance of probabilities.
Procedure and evidence
17. In R. v. Litchfield, the Supreme Court of Canada considered a case involving a physician charged with 14 counts of sexual assault against seven female patients. A lower court had ordered that three different trials be held depending on the part of the complainant's body involved in the assault genitals, breasts or other areas of body. The Supreme Court set aside the pre-trial severance order on the ground that it worked an injustice to the Crown, the complainants and the administration of justice, because it placed an artificial barrier to the trial judge's ability to consider the respondent's conduct in all the circumstances.
18. In R. v. Seaboyer, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the compatibility with the presumption of innocence in the Charter of the provisions in the Criminal Code relating to evidence of sexual reputation or history in sexual assault cases. It concluded that the exclusion of evidence of the sexual reputation of the complainant for purposes of supporting or challenging credibility was consistent with the presumption of innocence of the accused persons in the Charter, because such evidence was not relevant to credibility. The Court pointed out that the idea that a complainant's credibility might be affected by whether she has had other sexual experience has been discredited. However, the exclusion of evidence of prior sexual activity of the complainant for other purposes, with certain narrow exceptions, was contrary to the presumption of innocence in the Charter. Although such evidence was not relevant to credibility or consent, it will be admissible if its probative value on other issues is not outweighed by prejudice flowing from it.
19. In R. v. Osolin, the Supreme Court of Canada, in the context of a sexual assault case, stated that the right to cross-examine witnesses in the Charter was subject to reasonable limitations, including considerations relating to the guarantee of equality to men and women in ss. 15 and 28 of the Charter. However, it was acceptable to cross-examine the complainant on her medical records, in particular on a notation in the records that she was concerned that her attitude or behaviour might have influenced the accused.
20. In R. v. O'Connor, in the context of an application for the medical records of the complainant in a sexual assault case, the British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that the court should follow a two-stage procedure in determining admissibility. First, the applicant must show that there is information likely to be relevant in the records ("fishing expeditions" are not acceptable). Second, the court must review such documents and admit only those portions that are in fact relevant. The decision is under appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
21. In V.(K.L.) v. R.(D.G.), the British Columbia Court of Appeal declined to uphold an order requiring a complainant in a sexual assault case to produce her diaries for purposes of assessing damages against the respondent, her stepfather. The Court referred to the strong privacy interest in regard to personal journals, and to evidence given by psychiatrists of the role of keeping diaries in the healing of victims of sexual abuse.
Compensation
22. In L.(A.) v. Saskatchewan (Crimes Compensation Board), the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that s. 15 was not infringed when the Crimes Compensation Board reduced the compensation provided to a woman assaulted by her husband because she had remained with him for some time after he became abusive, on the ground that by doing so she had contributed to her own misfortune. The Board used the standard of the reasonably prudent person to assess her behaviour. (See para. 26 below on the test for "reasonableness" in the Stadnyk and Lavallee cases.)
(b) Pornography
23. In R. v. Butler, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the prohibition of obscenity in the Criminal Code involved a prima facie infringement of the guarantee of freedom of expression in s. 2(b) of the Charter, but was justifiable because of its purpose of protecting vulnerable groups in society such as women and children.
(c) Facilities for women prisoners
24. There have been a number of cases in which women prisoners have challenged the circumstances of their detention. For example, in Horii v. R., the Federal Court of Appeal granted an interlocutory injunction against the transfer of a woman prisoner from an essentially male federal penitentiary to a provincial prison, because it would interfere with her completing her university degree at the penitentiary. In C.(J.) v. Forensic Psychiatric Service Commissioner, on the basis of s. 15 of the Charter, a female forensic patient at a psychiatric institute successfully challenged a policy limiting residence in cottage facilities (used to prepare inmates for their return to society) to male patients.
II. Protection in human rights legislation against harassment
25. In Pond v. Canada Post Corporation, a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal held that pornographic materials, and making offensive comments and gestures about women in a male dominated area, poisoned the complainant's work environment and constituted sexual harassment under the Canadian Human Rights Act.
26. In Stadnyk v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal considered a complaint by a woman about a job interview for the position of information officer, where she was questioned about a complaint of sexual harassment against the same employer (the federal government) in her previous employment as a fire fighter, and her use of the media to publicize the complaint. The Tribunal noted that it should use the standard of the "reasonable victim" (in this case a reasonable woman), and take into account that as a victim she would have a heightened degree of sensitivity and concern about sexual harassment. However, because of the nature of the job she was seeking, the Tribunal concluded that a "reasonable victim" would have not objected to the questions asked. The Review Tribunal upheld this decision. A similar concern regarding the use of the "reasonable man" standard was expressed by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Lavallee, in accepting the defense of "battered wife's syndrome" in a murder case (see para. 122 of Canada's third report). Wilson J. stated that "[t]he definition of what is reasonable must be adapted to the circumstances which are, by and large, foreign to the world inhabited by the hypothetical reasonable man " (p. 874).
III. Civil liability for violence against women
27. In Norberg v. Wynrib, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the defence of consent to an allegation of the tort of battery was not available where "consent" was given by a woman dependent on drugs to a sexual relationship with a doctor in order to obtain drugs. The Court stated that there was a marked inequality of bargaining power between the doctor and the patient in these circumstances, and exploitation of it by the doctor.
28. In M.(K.) v. M.(H.), the Supreme Court of Canada considered the question of whether an action for damages for tort and breach of fiduciary duty, by a woman who had been subjected to incest as a child by her father, was barred by the limitations period. The Court stated that incest is both a tortious assault and a breach of the fiduciary duty between parent and child. In regard to the tort action, the limitation period had not expired because the plaintiff, although she had been aware of the incest for several years, had suffered from "post-incest" syndrome, and therefore had not appreciated that the wrongful conduct was her father's responsibility rather than her own. In regard to the claim of breach of fiduciary duty, the limitation period did not apply, nor, in the circumstances under consideration, was the equitable doctrine of laches applicable.
IV. Repeal of discriminatory laws
29. As indicated above, in the Sparks case a law involving discrimination against women was struck down. See also Manitoba Council of Health Care Unions in para. 36 below, Rehberg in para. 42 and Salituro in para. 46.
Article 2 - Links to Convention text and other sections
CONV | FED | NF |
NS | NB |
QC | ON |
MB | SK |
AB | BC |
YK | NT
Article 4 (special temporary measures)
30. In Conway v. Canada (Attorney General), the Supreme Court of Canada held that it was not contrary to s. 15 of the Charter for female guards to be permitted to frisk male inmates, although male guards could not frisk female inmates (because they could not be employed in female penitentiaries). The Court stated that s. 15 does not require identical treatment, and that different treatment may be called for in certain cases to promote equality. In the circumstances under consideration, given the historical, biological and sociological differences between men and women, the effect of cross-gender searching is more threatening for women than for men. If there were any infringement of s. 15, the achievement of employment equity would be a relevant consideration in justifying the policy within the terms of s. 1 (reasonable limits) of the Charter.
Article 4 - Links to Convention text and other sections
CONV | FED | NF |
NS | NB |
QC | ON |
MB | SK |
AB | NT
Article 5 (stereotyping)
31. Canadian courts have emphasized in a number of cases the importance of avoiding stereotyped ideas about women. For example, in the Rehberg case (see para. 30 below), the court referred to evidence that the "man-in-the-house rule" was based on stereotypical notions of women.
Article 5 - Links to Convention text and other
sections
CONV |
FED | NS
| NB | QC
| ON | MB
| SK | AB
| YK | NT
32. In R. v. Downey, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the question of whether s. 195(2) of the Criminal Code, according to which evidence that a person lives or is in the continual company of prostitutes is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, evidence that he lives off the avails of prostitution, was contrary to the presumption of innocence guaranteed by s. 11(d) of the Charter. The Court stated that although s. 195(2) involved a prima facie infringement of s. 11(d), it was a reasonable limit within the terms of s. 1 of the Charter because it served the important objective of attempting to deal with a cruel and pervasive social evil that is, the exploitative activity of pimps.
Article 6 - Links to Convention text and other sections
CONV | FED | NS |
MB
Article 7 (political and public life)
33. In Native Women's Association of Canada v. Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada considered a claim by the Native Women's Association of Canada (NWAC) that ss. 2(b) (freedom of expression), 15 (equality rights) and 28 (equal guarantee of Charter rights to men and women) of the Charter were breached when the federal government did not provide NWAC with direct funding to take part in constitutional discussions, although other Aboriginal groups alleged to be male dominated were so funded. The Court noted that there was no evidence that the funded groups were less representative of the views of women, and stated that freedom of expression does not generally include the right to receive positive assistance from government.
34. In 1985, with the enactment of Bill C-31, the rights of women who had previously lost Indian status and band membership as a result of marrying non-Indians were restored, and also those of their children. Their right to reside on the reserve, however, depended on the availability of accommodation there, and in particular on the decision of the Band Council. Furthermore, pursuant to s. 77(1) of the Indian Act only Band members resident on the reserve had the right to vote in Band elections. In Batchewana Indian Band (Non-Resident Members) v. Batchewana Indian Band, the Federal Court, Trial Division held that s. 77(1) infringed s. 15 of the Charter in its application to the Batchewana Band, noting that band members off reserve were for the most part "Bill C-31 women and children", and therefore a historically disadvantaged group within the ambit of s. 15 (under appeal).
Article 7 - Links to Convention text and other sections
CONV | FED | NF |
PE | NS |
NB | QC |
ON | MB |
SK | AB |
BC | NT
Article 9 (nationality)
35. Before February 15, 1977, children born abroad of Canadian fathers or Canadian mothers in the case of a child born out of wedlock, were entitled to Canadian citizenship if their birth was registered within the prescribed period. This was not the case for children born abroad of Canadian married mothers and non-Canadian fathers. In Benner v. Canada (Secretary of State), the Federal Court of Appeal held that the denial in 1989 of citizenship to a man born abroad in 1962, in wedlock, to a Canadian mother was not discrimination on the basis of sex contrary to s. 15 of the Charter (under appeal). The Court noted that s. 15 does not have retroactive application, and in any event, the difference in treatment was not because of the sex of the applicant.
Article 9 - Links to Convention text and other
sections
CONV
Article 11 (employment)
36. In Manitoba Council of Health Care Unions v. Bethesda Hospital et al., the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that a provision of the Pay Equity Act limiting pay equity adjustments on the part of employers to one percent of the previous year's payroll violated s. 15 of the Charter. The Court stated that it permitted continued discrimination against persons performing women's work.
37. In Alberta Hospital Association v. Parcels, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that a requirement in a collective agreement that persons on maternity leave prepay 100 percent of their premiums for benefits, whereas persons on sick leave were only required to prepay 25 percent of the premiums, was discriminatory respecting that part of maternity leave which is health related, contrary to the Alberta Individual's Rights Protection Act. See also paras. 11, 30 and 43.
38. In Chiang v. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal held that the policy of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) that a scientist's grant money could not be used to employ family members constituted discrimination on the ground of family status contrary to the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Tribunal ruled that in order to sustain a defence against a complaint of discrimination of this nature the organization in question must show that the policy was objectively related to the situation. A sweeping prohibition on employing relatives without criteria for exceptions could not be justified. Subsequent to this decision, NSERC removed this policy but has maintained the following clause in its guidelines governing the use of grant funds: "Payment of Family Members: Since NSERC has no regulation prohibiting payment of family members from an NSERC grant, the policy of each university applies in such cases. Universities that allow the hiring of family members must ensure that conflict of interest is avoided regarding performance evaluations and related matters."
39. In Floyd v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission (CEIC), a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal held that the CEIC had discriminated against the complainant by reducing her entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits because of her pregnancy. Under the Unemployment Insurance Act at that time, she received only 28 weeks of unemployment insurance, not the 35 weeks to which she would have been entitled if she had not been pregnant. The Act was subsequently amended.
Article 11 - Links to Convention text and other
sections
CONV |
FED | NF | PE |
NS | NB
| QC | ON | MB |
SK | AB
| BC | YK
Article 12 (health)
40. In Lexogest Inc. et al. v. Manitoba (Attorney General) et al., the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that a regulation denying health coverage for therapeutic abortions performed at an abortion clinic rather than in a hospital was invalid because it was not authorized by the Manitoba Health Services Insurance Act. See also paras. 17 and 27 above.
41. In Ontario (Attorney General) v. Dieleman, the Ontario Court (General Division) concluded that an interlocutory injunction prohibiting anti-abortion activity near abortion clinics and the residences and offices of health care providers was a reasonable limit of free expression as guaranteed by s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because of the need to protect the physiological, psychological and privacy interests of women seeking abortions, to protect the safety and privacy of health care providers and their families, and to ensure the continued availability of abortion services.
Article 12 - Links to Convention text and other
sections
CONV |
FED | PE | NS |
NB | QC
| ON | MB | SK |
AB | BC
| NT
Article 13 (economic and social benefits)
I. Economic benefits
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
42. In R. v. Rehberg, the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia held that a provision of the Family Benefits Act disentitling single parents to social assistance if they were cohabiting with a person of the opposite sex ("the man-in-the-house-rule") violated s. 15 of the Charter (under appeal). The Court noted that 97 percent of the persons disentitled to assistance because of the provision were women, and that there was a discriminatory effect on single mothers on family benefits.
43. In Symes v. Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 15 of the Charter was not violated by the exclusion of child care expenses from business deductions for income tax purposes, where there was a child care expense deduction of a specific amount under the Income Tax Act. The Court indicated that the exclusion did not involve adverse effects discrimination against women, because, although it was clear their share of the child care burden in society was disproportionate, the plaintiff had not established that women bore a disproportionate share of child care expenses.
44. There have been a number of cases involving allegations of discrimination on the basis of sex or marital status in the area of pension benefits. For example, in McLeod v. Attorney General (Canada), the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that it was not contrary to s. 15 of the Charter for survivor's benefits under the Canada Pension Plan to go to the common law spouse, rather than to the legal spouse from whom the deceased person was separated.
II. Social benefits
45. In Gould v. Yukon Order of Pioneers, Dawson Lodge No. 1, the Yukon Territory Court of Appeal held that a provision of the Human Rights Act of the Yukon Territory prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex in the provision of services to the public was not breached when the Yukon Order of Pioneers denied membership to the female plaintiff because of her sex (under appeal). The Yukon Order of Pioneers is a fraternal organization largely social in nature but which also collects and preserves Yukon history. The Court concluded that there was discrimination against the plaintiff, but that it was not in the provision of services to the public. It stated that although the Yukon Order of Pioneers provides the results of its historical research to the public, it did not follow that women had the right to participate in such research to ensure that it was not biased.
Article 13 - Links to Convention text and other
sections
CONV |
FED | NB | QC |
ON | MB
| SK | BC
Article 15 (legal capacity)
46. In R. v. Salituro, the Supreme Court of Canada changed the common law rule prohibiting spouses of accused persons from being witnesses for the prosecution to permit separated spouses to give evidence. The Court stated that it had a duty to ensure that the common law developed in a manner compatible with Charter values, and that the rule in question was not compatible with the importance now given to sexual equality.
Article 15 - Links to Convention text and other
sections
CONV |
FED | NB | ON |
SK | AB
| BC
Article 16 (family and marriage)
(i) Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
47. In Schachter v. Canada, referred to in para. 114 of Canada's Third Report, the Federal Court, Trial Division held that it was contrary to s. 15 of the Charter for the Unemployment Insurance Act to provide parental benefits to natural mothers and adoptive parents, but not to natural fathers (appeal denied in the Federal Court of Appeal). Subsequently, the Supreme Court of Canada, dealing with the issue of remedy only, concluded that the appropriate remedy in this case would have been to declare the legislative provision void and of no effect, and to suspend the declaration of invalidity to provide Parliament with time to amend the provision. However, the Court did not make the order because the legislation had already been amended.
48. In Thibaudeau v. Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada held that provisions of the Income Tax Act requiring persons receiving child support payments to include them in their income for tax purposes, and permitting those paying child support to deduct them from income, did not contravene s. 15 of the Charter. The Court stated that the provisions in question are designed to minimize the tax consequences of support payments, thereby promoting the best interests of the children by ensuring that more money is available to provide for their care.
(ii) Divorce Act
49. In Moge v. Moge, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that a divorced wife was entitled under the Divorce Act to continue to receive financial support from her former husband for an indefinite period, because it was not feasible in the circumstances for her to become self sufficient. The Court noted that the objective of self sufficiency is only one of several criteria governing maintenance awards in the Act, and that it is a goal only in so far as is practicable. The Court also relied upon evidence that divorce and its economic effects are contributing to the feminization of poverty in Canada.
50. Section 68 of the Bankruptcy Act enables a court to order a bankrupt person or his or her employer to pay a portion of his or her wages to the trustee in bankruptcy for purposes of ensuring the discharge of his or her family responsibilities. In Marzetti v. Marzetti, the Supreme Court of Canada was called upon to decide whether s. 68 could be relied upon to order the Crown to pay part of the bankrupt's income tax refund to the Director of Maintenance Enforcement, for the benefit of his wife and children. In concluding that s. 68 permitted such an order, the Supreme Court noted that public policy goals supported this interpretation, and referred in particular to the goal of defeating the role of divorce in the feminization of poverty, that it had recognized in the Moge case.
51. In Young v. Young, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the application of the best interests principle in the Divorce Act to a claim by a parent with visiting rights to involve his children in religious activities did not infringe the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Article 16 - Links to Convention text and other
sections
CONV |
FED | NS | NB |
QC | ON
| MB | AB | BC |
NT
Alberta Hospital Association v. Parcels, (1992) 17 C.H.R.R. D/167 (Alta. Q.B.)
Batchewana Indian Band (Non-Resident Members) v. Batchewana Indian Band, [1994] 1 F.C. 394 (F.C.T.D.)
Benner v. Canada (Secretary of State), [1994] 1 F.C. 250 (Fed. C.A.) (under appeal)
R. v. Biddle, (Ont. C.A., August/93)
Brown v. Minister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise), (1994) 19 C.H.R.R. D/39 (C.H.R.T.)
R. v. Butler, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452
C.(J.) v. Forensic Psychiatric Service Commissioner, (1992) 8 C.R.R. (2d) 260 (B.C.S.C.)
Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 970
Chiang v. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (1993) 17 C.H.R.R. D/63 (C.H.R.T.)
Commission scolaire r‚gionale de Chambly v. Bergevin, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 225
Conway v. Canada (Attorney General), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 872
R. v. D. (F.), (1992) 77 C.C.C. (3d) 575 (Ont. C.A.)
Dartmouth/Halifax County Regional Housing Authority v. Sparks, (1993) 101 D.L.R. (4th) 224 (N.S.C.A.)
Daviault v. The Queen [1994] 3 S.C.R. 63
Dieleman, Ontario (Attorney General) v., (1994) 20 O.R. (3d) 229 (Ont. Ct., Gen. Div.)
Douglas v. The Queen, (1993) 93 CLLC 16,031 (F.C.T.D.)
R. v. Downey, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 10
Egan v. Canada, (S.C.C., May 25/95)
Emrick Plastics v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), (1992) 90 D.L.R. (4th) 476 (Ont. Div. Ct.)
Floyd v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, (1992) 93 C.L.L.C. 17,008 (C.H.R.T.)
Gould v. Yukon Order of Pioneers, Dawson Lodge No. 1, (1993) 100 D.L.R. (4th) 596 (Y.T.C.A.), under appeal
Haig v. The Queen, (1992) 94 D.L.R. (4th) (Ont.C.A.)
Horii v. R., (1991) 7 Admin. L. R. (2d) 1 (Fed. C.A.)
L. (A.) v. Saskatchewan (Crimes Compensation Board), [1992] 6 W.W.R. 577 (Sask. C.A.)
Leroux v. Co-Operators General Insurance Co., (1991) 4 O.R. (3d) 609 (Ont.C.A.) (under appeal, sub nom. Miron v. Trudel)
Lexogest Inc. et al. v. Manitoba (Attorney General) et al., (1992) 82 Man. R. (2d) 64 (Q.B.)
R. v. Litchfield, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 333
M.(K.) v. M.(H.), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 6
Manitoba Council of Health Care Unions v. Bethesda Hospital et al., (1992) 88 D.L.R. (4th) 60 (Man. Q.B.)
Marzetti v. Marzetti, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 765
McLeod v. Attorney General (Canada), (Alta.Q.B., Dec. 10/93))
Miron v. Trudel, (S.C.C., May 25/95)
Moge v. Moge, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813
Native Women's Association of Canada v. Canada, [1994] S.C.R. -
Norberg v. Wynrib, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 226
Panko v. Vandesype, (1993) 101 D.L.R. (4th) 726 (Sask. Q.B.), under appeal
Pond v. Canada Post Corporation, unreported decision of a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
R. v. Lavallee, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852
R. v. O'Connor, (1994) 30 C.R. (4th) 55 (B.C.C.A.), under appeal
R. v. Osolin, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 595
R. v. Rehberg, (1994) 19 C.R.R. (2d) 242 (N.S.S.C.)
R. v. Salituro, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 654
Schachter v. Canada, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679
R. v. Seaboyer, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577
Stadnyk v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, (1993) 93 C.L.L.C. 17,027 (C.H.R.T.); Review Tribunal (March 7/95, unreported)
Symes v. Canada, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 695
Thibaudeau v. Canada, (S.C.C., May 25/95)
University of British Columbia v. Berg, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 353
V.(K.L.) v. R.(D.G.), (B.C.C.A., September 2/94)
Young v. Young, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3