Delwin Vriend Case Summary

The nation of Canada has strived to be recognized as a long-standing picture of equal democratic rights and freedoms for all. Although mistakes and occasional aberrations do occur, we must always endeavour to be a nation that promotes equality and shuns discrimination, even if it means changing our laws in the process. Equality for all is a constitutionally entrenched law and we as citizens, lawmakers, and judges must uphold the constitution and ensure our nation evolves to demonstrate, in practice, the intent of words outlined in the constitution. In Vriend v. Alberta, the appellant Delwin Vriend was working as a laboratory coordinator in Alberta when he was terminated after revealing his sexual orientation (Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493 2). It was well known that Vriend received positive reviews on his work and throughout the course of his employment he enjoyed the benefits of his hard work (Vriend v. Alberta 11). However, this all changed when Vriend shared with his employers that he was homosexual. Due to the fact Vriend refused to comply with the request to leave his position because his homosexuality offended the views of his employer, he was unceremoniously terminated solely on these grounds (Vriend v. Alberta 2). Vriend was understandably upset with this decision and moved to file a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission (Vriend v. Alberta 2). Vriend was informed due to the fact sexual orientation was not included as a prohibited grounds for

Section 15 highlights an individual’s rights to equality, thus making discrimination unconstitutional. As per the precedent that was set by the case titled Vriend v. Alberta, the termination of an employee based on sexual orientation is unlawful. While section 15 of the charter does not explicitly include sexual orientation, the ruling judge decided to read into the law. In Vriend’s case, he was fired for the sole purpose that his employers did not approve of his sexual orientation and that is parallel to Andrew Beckett’s termination. Both Vriend and Beckett were known to administer competent performance within their field and were unjustly fired because of their employer’s attitude towards sexual orientation. These two cases being coincidentally similar should not reflect differing outcomes, if the judge can read in on Vriend’s case then the same would be possible with

In U.S. v. Windsor a same-sex couple (Windsor and Spyer) who met in 1963 and had been dating ever since registered as domestic partners in 1993 in New York. Worried about Spyer’s failing health they went to Canada to get married in 2007. In 2009 Spyer died and left everything to Windsor. At the time DOMA denied federal recognition to same-sex spouses, Windsor did not qualify for the marital exemption from the federal estate tax, which excludes from taxation “any interest in property which passes or has passed from the decedent to his surviving spouse.” 26 U.S.C. § 2056(a).

The move towards an intersectional approach is evident in several Supreme Court rulings. “Some courts and tribunals have started to acknowledge the need to make special provision for discrimination based on multiple grounds and to recognize the social, economic and historical context in which it takes place” (Ontario Human Rights Commission). Although still in its infancy the court’s understanding of the intersectional approach has provided the Supreme Court of Canada to include comments on multiple grounds of discrimination and intersecting grounds. The Mossop case SCR 554 was the first decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to consider equality rights for gays. Madam Justice L’Heureux-Dubé remarked, “it is increasingly recognized that categories

In the Chicago Tribune article titled “Florida’s puzzling case against gay adoptions” written by Steve Chapman argues that Florida’s government should give an opportunity to homosexual people to adopt children. Couple weeks ago the U.S Supreme Court hold out the policy which prevent gays and lesbians from adopting children in Florida. However, there a lot of side effects are generated by this resolution. Such as Steven Lofton, who has taken honor from the Children’s home society as an outstanding foster parent and dedicated himself to take care of the kids with HIV or AIDS full-time for the past decade. Despite how adequately suitable to serve as a foster parent, it didn’t change the state’s mind to view as an adoptive parent since he is a

Supreme Court stated that the “Homosexual Conduct” law of Texas was unconstitutional and the law violated the 14th Amendment Due process Clause. This Clause protects  the right to personal freedom in intimate decisions. The issue wasn’t "the right to engage in homosexual sodomy" but  "the right to privacy in the home" and another is "the right to freely engage in consensual, adult sex."

The ruling in Lawrence v. Texas reflects that, and it is justified by the unconstitutionality of the sodomy statute in question, the fact that Lawrence and Garner’s arrest was unconstitutional, the precedent set by Romer, and the outdated nature of the previous ruling on sodomy statutes in Bowers. Additionally, the mental well-being of the LGBTQ+ community will be improved by this ruling, further justifying it and its necessity. People should not be discriminated against simply because they have sex with people whose gender matches their own, and the Lawrence ruling, in reducing the amount of discrimination that is possible, allows an equal future to be a possible

In summary of these, the Obergefell V Hodges has received opposition as well as propositions at different degrees, but the majority of the debaters’ are the proposing side. The main idea here was to legalize the Same-sex marriage which had been prohibited in the previous court rulings (Siegel, 2015). The proposing team was emphasizing on the following factors; the right to personal choices as clarified in the human dignity, the right to intimate association, marriage as a foundation of the American social order and the ability to sustain and safeguard children and families (Siegel, 2015).

In section 15 the Charter states: “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” (Section 15, Charter of Rights and Freedoms). In January 1991, Delwin Vriend was fired from a Christian college in Edmonton, Alberta after they became aware that he was a gay man. Mr. Vriend attempted to file a human rights complaint, but the Commission told him that he could not file a complaint because sexual orientation was not included as a protected ground. Mr. Vriend appealed to the Supreme Court. In the end, the Supreme Court unanimously “found that it is discrimination violating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”) for any institution to deny lesbians, gays and bisexuals the human rights protection that it accords to other disadvantaged groups. The Court ordered that “sexual orientation” be read into human rights legislation. As a result, governments could no longer deny protection to lesbians, gays and bisexuals through inaction – the Court explicitly stated that the Charter applies to legal actions and omissions alike” (Through the Looking Glass: the Vriend Decision and

In Journal of Human Rights published in 2014, after the Equalities Act of 2010 enacted, the United Kingdom sees sexuality and gender identities as “protected characteristics,” with legal imperatives to address discrimination, and in Canada in the early 1990s, there were an opposition against gays and lesbian rights, but after sexual orientation recognized in 1995, gradually by 2013, gays and lesbians have equality rights. (Browne, 2014)

All families face challenges in their everyday life. For some, the challenges are easier to handle while for others, surmounting those challenges can be more difficult. Over the years, the LGBT community in the US has faced many hurdles. Whether it’s the legalization of same-sex marriage to adoption rights to alimony, child support and child custody in case of divorce, legislation specific to gay and lesbian couples still has a long way to go.

​Canada is often seen as a leader in the gay rights movement and it has a long history of providing rights to those that identify as homosexual (BC Teachers’ Federation, 2016; Cotler, 2015). As far back as 1969, Prime Minister Trudeau passed Bill C-150 which amended the Criminal Code to decriminalize “gross indecency” and “buggery”; if committed between two consenting adults if they are over 21 (BC Teachers’ Federation, 2016). The Code was further amended to drop the age of consent for anal sex from 18 and 14 for other sexual activity and it was recognized that a higher age for consent of anal sex was unconstitutional (BC Teachers’ Federation, 2016). Since then there have been many changes to the political and social system in Canada to be able to improve the rights not only individuals whom are part of the LGBTQ community, but also for those whom are in same sex relationships (BC Teachers’ Federation, 2016). As of 2005, same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada; however, there is still debate of whether or not same-sex legalization has legitimized same-sex partnerships within society (Colter, 2015). Many cases that have come before the court regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriages have argued that the actions of society are a direct violation of people’s s.15 rights in the Constitution; which allows for every person to be treated equally and bear the freedom of religion (Supreme Court Judgements, 2004). It will be argued that Canada has created equal rights for

Discrimination concerns have also become a problem regarding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the past, homosexuals were discriminated and penalized for their sexual orientation. They were murdered in the early twentieth century and then later on imprisoned as time passed. Discrimination also arose if employers discovered of their employees homosexual orientation, which caused them to lose their employment. The equality rights have also been violated concerning marriage benefits and the definition as well – (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. Before the definition of marriage was changed, homosexuals were not included under the law stating marriage as the union between a man and a woman. The government found it unconstitutional and changed it so it would correspond to the changes in the twenty-first century and reflect Canadian society in the present stating that marriage is a civil act

The proposed legalization of same-sex marriage is one of the most significant issues in contemporary American family law. As a heavily campaigned development currently discussed in law assessment; these extremely confrontational and debatable political questions are facing present day American courts. If same-sex marriage is legalized, its affect on the parents, children, same sex couples, families, and the social and political world will be astronomical. The arguments surrounding the issue though confrontational nonetheless are easily seen from a wide array of perspectives. One of the perspectives states that marriage is a promise to a spouse to stay loyal and faithful in all

This writer will be discussing a case where a male employee files a sexual harassment claim against the employer as the male employee identifies as being gay. He also is filing discrimination on the basis of his gender and alleges retaliation as he was terminated after he had complained about his female coworker. Apparently, the male employee alleged that a female employee while at a dinner and concert after work hours grabbed his privates. It is important to note that the male employee’s performance prior to the incident was declining and was counseled on several occasions by his employer about his declining production. Furthermore, this writer will be discussing whether if the facts could result in liability to the employer for sexual harassment or gender discrimination. Also, this writer will be integrating and referring to various sources and cases that