The Mossop Case Scr 554

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

The main thing to remember about this case is that it started out as an estate tax case. Ms. Windsor started this because she felt she was entitled to Ms. Spyer’s estate and was wrong and so she challenged the constitutionality of DOMA. It is then that this case stopped being about estate tax and became about same-sex

Vriend filed a motion in the Court of Queen’s Bench for declaratory relief. The trial judge found that the omission of protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was an unjustified violation of s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. She ordered that the words “sexual orientation” be read into ss. 2(1), 3, 4, 7(1), 8(1) and 10 of the IRPA as a prohibited ground of discrimination. The majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the Alberta government’s appeal. However, the Alberta government failed to demonstrate that it had a reasonable basis for excluding sexual orientation from the IRPA. Since they had failed to demonstrate any beneficial effect of the exclusion in promoting and protecting human rights, there was no proportionality between the attainment of the legislative goal and the infringement of the appellants’ equality

Grimm argues that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the law that bars sex discrimination in the nation’s schools, prohibits discrimination based on his gender identity. Grimm’s case is the first case devoted entirely to transgender rights the justices have agreed to hear – meaning there are few clues to how they might rule. But there are many cases posing similar questions about federal law and gender identity waiting in the wings. In one such lawsuit, a Michigan corporation has asserted the right to discriminate against a transgender employee based on the company owner’s religious

Chief Justice Roberts made a principal dissent, claiming that in just one day, the court has transformed the societal institution of marriage that has banded humanity together for millennia. Roberts made clear that no consensus is worth a decision he feels completely overstepped the Supreme Court’s constitutional bonds, stating “Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner…but do not celebrate the constitution”. Roberts repeatedly insists that history and tradition must be drawn on to come to a conclusion, and judges ought not to rely on his or her own moral judgement concerning the morality of whether denying the fundamental rights would be unjust in light of the constitution. Although Roberts’ does agree that same-sex couples who have previously challenged state laws excluding them from marriage “make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness” , he ultimately believes that the Constitution cannot decide what is fair and what is just.

Where a gender-neutral alternative is available, the gender-discriminatory classification is not said to be the least intrusive means that the government can use, and therefore, the classification put forward by the government is not “necessary”. However, the government would be required to show that the means they use is necessary and narrowly tailored to advance its objectives only under strict scrutiny. Where the classification is not invidious, not selecting the least discriminatory means would not necessarily render the statute violative of equal protection. Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57, 101 S. Ct. 2646 (1981). As established supra, it is the intermediate scrutiny standard that applies to the present issue, and the City only needs to prove that its objective is important and the statutory classification is substantially related to that objective. It is not necessary for the City to pursue the least discriminatory means to pass the judicial review. The City will withstand intermediate

In recent decades, the Supreme Court has not granted certiorari for many gender-based discrimination cases, and consequently there has not been much jurisprudential progress lately regarding Equal Protection Clause claims. It is not uncommon for the Supreme Court to back off of certain issues that they feel are largely solved for the time being. Feeling that the existing precedent is satisfactory, the Court has not shown a desire to alter the test for gender-based claims and have settled on using an intermediate level of scrutiny for such cases, in between rational basis and strict scrutiny. Race and national origin are the only groups that are given strict scrutiny under the Supreme Court’s current Equal Protection Clause analysis.

Arousing the Civil Rights Act instated in 1964, Judge Lee Rosenthal of Southern District of Texas ruled that Title VII forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, supplementing the traditional instated prohibition of prejudice based on one’s color, race, religion, sex, and national origin in the workplace. Concluding that biased notions towards one’s sexuality and transgender status are forms of discriminant towards one’s sex, Judge Rosenthal decreed the inclusion for protections of non-heteronormative individuals.

It is anti-democratic to give power to judges when they contradict the decisions made by the elected Canadian government officials (Cameron, 2009, p. 23). Judicial activism argues to protect individuals Charter rights, but the reading in of sexual orientation directly goes against the Charter (Cameron, 2009, p. 26). Judicial activism aims to protect individual Charter rights, but can instead end up going against the

For Australian law to be effective it must be dynamic so it can reflect changing societal views, which law reform can help attain. A significant area of recent social change is the acceptance of same-sex relationships in Australian society. To mirror this, current law reforms have been somewhat effective in achieving just outcomes regarding the recognition of same-sex relationships in Commonwealth law. The combination of official recognition of same-sex relationships to an extent, attempts at removing discrimination in legislation, and the delay of justice denotes this. Considering the achievement of justice and the protection of individual’s rights, it is evident that law reform has significantly improved recognition of same-sex relationships, but there are more essential responses that need to be enacted.

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)

​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

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals, also known as LGBT population have experienced a great deal of oppression worldwide. These particular individuals undergo discrimination from society, whether for reasons of ignorance, fear or intolerance, this population faces challenges in multiple areas of social justice sexual. Although the LGBT culture has made some strides in the areas of state and federal legislation, there is still a wide range of criminalization that takes place within our culture. Understanding the LGBT community and the history of their oppression may be the first step in becoming culturally competent. For many years this culture was denied their basic constitutional rights that were afforded to their equal heterosexual peers. Basic rights such as, adoption and marriage were uncommon to this culture until the 20th century.

Professor Johnson’s lecture sparked conversation about whether or not the Supreme Court ruling accomplished enough for the LGBT community. At the time, I was unaware of how the ruling could be something that wasn’t an all-around win for the community, but after being introduced to queer politics