Introducing 

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Loading…
Transcript

Vriend v Alberta [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493

Holding

Judicial History

Parties Involved

Ratio

  • The legislative omission in Alberta’s Individual Rights Protection Act is in violation of s.15 and is not saved by s.1
  • Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ruled that the omission of sexual orientation was a violation of s. 15(1) and cannot be saved under s. 1

  • Alberta Court of Appeal overturned the decision
  • The Charter applies to governmental omission as well as positive acts, and choosing not to include something in legislation that should be protected by the Charter is in violation of the Charter

  • Omission of something in a piece of legislation is considered a government action

Appellants:

  • Delwin Vriend, Gala-Gay and Lesbian Awareness Society of Edmonton, Gay and Lesbian Community Centre of Edmonton Society and Dignity Canada Dignité for Gay Catholics and Supporters

Respondent:

  • Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Alberta and Her Majesty's Attorney General in and for the Province of Alberta

Section 1 Analysis

Issues

Facts of the Case

  • Does a legislative omission fall under the protection the Charter?

  • If not, was this violation saved by s.1 of the Charter?
  • Pressing and substantive objective

  • Rational connection

  • Minimal Impairment

  • Proportionality
  • Vriend was dismissed from his position at King's College because of his sexual orientation

  • Prevented from making a complaint under Alberta's Individual Rights Protection Act because it does not include sexual orientation as a prohibited grounds of discrimination

Discussion Questions

1. Do you think the SCC should be reading into legislation, rather than striking down the legislation, and then suspending the decision until the Alberta government had amended the legislation?

2. Do you think the Court should be more proactive in protecting constitutional rights (as they did in this case), or should it be left to elected representatives (i.e. the legislature/Parliament)?

Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi