The Canadian Lesbian & Gay Archives / Materials / Records / Related documents
	What we got: The details
	Page 9 / Other rights in law / Appx 1,650 words

What we got: The details
Other rights in law

Some issues here fall under provincial and municipal jurisdiction. Others overlap substantially with broader Federal human rights protection, dealt with separately (links to that page are shown below as Federal).

Income tax and pensions

1983

• TBP Dec 83: Legal restraints and better hopes. Special report on symposium, "Homosexuality and Justice", Laval University, early autumn. Report noted that "federal Tax Review Board has ruled that, given the silence of the law, one could not be sure that the term spouse only refers to a married person, and that specific cases have to be looked at."

1989

• Xtra 14 Apr 89: 'See you in court!' Story on 2 Mar 89 EGALE fundraiser notes Conservative government (committed to sexual orientation protection since 4 Mar 86, but not having acted on it) had launched "onerous defence" 24 Feb 89 "in the Jim Egan and John Nesbit challenge to the Old Age Security Act." No details previously reported (but they're sure to follow).

• Xtra 28 Apr 89: Victory for equal rights. CHRC tribunal rules 13 Apr 89 on complaint lodged in Aug 85 by Brian Mossop against his employer, Government of Canada, after he was denied bereavement leave to attend funeral of father of his lover (Xtra publisher Ken Popert). Ruling, in Mossop's favour, says "it is reasonable to conclude that homosexual couples may constitute a family." Story says: "The door has been opened to a broad interpretation of the terms 'family status' [included in CHRA's list of prohibited grounds of discrimination] and 'common-law spouse.'" Same page carried late-breaking story, The feds appeal: Mossop received notice of appeal by justice minister Doug Lewis on 26 Apr 89.

• Xtra 25 Aug 89: Unequal unions: Conference finds gay & lesbian couples disadvantaged. Story on 5 Aug 89 "spousal rights" confab held by CLGRO notes case of Les Beu and his imprisoned lover Tim Veysey, who had "launched a Charter challenge [i.e., based on Charter of Rights and Freedoms] to a federal prison regulation that permits conjugal visits by married and common- law spouses, but denies them to gay and lesbian lovers."

• Xtra 24 Nov 89: It's unconstitutional! Federal court rules bias against gays violates Charter of Rights. Federal Court of Canada, 6 Nov 89, rules in favour of Beu and Veysey, implying they constitute a "family" covered by federal prisons' Private Family Visiting Program. Judge notes sexual orientation is not listed in Section 15 of the Charter (see May 85 in Federal), "but, in my view, it is an analogous ground."

1990

• Xtra 28 Dec 90 (year-end compendium): Breaking into jail: Federal Court of Appeal, on 31 May 90, upheld 6 Nov 89 ruling in favour of Beu and Veysey. Not a family: Federal Court of Appeal overturned Apr 89 CHRC tribunal ruling in favour of Brian Mossop, 29 Jun 90. Mossop to appeal to Supreme Court.

1993

• Xtra 5 Mar 93: This 'no' means 'maybe': Supreme Court dismisses Mossop case, but invites Charter challenge. Supreme Court of Canada rules, in 4 to 3 decision 25 Feb 93, that same-sex relationships are not protected under "family status" provision of CHRA. But decision, written by Chief Justice Antonio Lamer, indicated that Mossop's case could have been argued as a Charter challenge, based on sexual orientation, saying "It would then have been possible to give a much more complete and lasting solution to the present problem."

• Xtra 14 May 93: Old age pension denied: A BC man will appeal federal court ruling. In case of James Egan and John Nesbit (see 14 Apr 89 above), Federal Court of Appeal rules 29 Apr 93 that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not at issue in definition of "spouse" as person of the opposite sex in Old Age Security Act -- since Act discriminates against other cohabitational relationships as well. Egan to appeal to Supreme Court.

• Xtra 24 Dec 93: Year-end compendium reports that in May it was revealed that "Revenue Canada had send out a tough memo reminding companies that their health plans will lose their tax-exempt status if same-sex spousal benefits are provided." Many firms were already offering joint insurance coverage to partners of gay and lesbian employees.

1994

• Xtra 11 Nov 94: Spousal benefits challenged: James Egan hopes he will live to hear Supreme Court's decision. Federal lawyers argue before Supreme Court in the Egan case, 1 Nov 94, that the Old Age Security Act was meant to benefit a needy group -- homemakers who were married to poor men -- and that "There is no evidence that gays and lesbians have been a disadvantaged group from an economic perspective." Court reserves decision. "Our problem is staying alive long enough to hear the final judgment," says Egan, 73. He and Nesbit, 66, had been together since 1948.

1995

• Xtra 9 Jun 95: Checkered victory: No pension for spouse of 47 years, court rules; and (continuation) Supreme Court leaves door ajar: Spousal rights may come -- when concept is not so "novel". In 5 to 4 decision, Supreme Court rules in Egan case, 25 May 95, that Old Age Security Act was intended to benefit needy married couples and that Parliament had the right to discriminate in favour of traditional families. But see also same date in Federal.

  Story also notes challenge, set for late Jul 95, by Canadian Union of Public Employees to Income Tax Act "because the law allows for deregistering of pension plans that offer survivor benefits to same-sex spouses."

• Xtra 29 Sep 95: Feds vote down spousal recognition. Private member's motion calling for "legal recognition of same-sex spouses," introduced Apr 95 by Réal Ménard (Bloc Québécois MP; he and Svend Robinson the only openly gay MPs) is defeated in Commons, 18 Sep 95.

1996

• Xtra 20 Jun 96: Cat was treated better than lover: Tribunal orders fed to offers same-sex benefits. In case of civil servant posted by Department of Foreign Affairs to Jakarta (his cat's move paid for but not his lover's), CHRC tribunal rules 13 Jun 96 that federal government must offer same- sex spousal benefits to all its employees (dental and medical benefits specified; pensions may not be within CHRC jurisdiction). Also orders they produce "a list of all federal laws and regulations which give benefits to heterosexual couples that are denied to same sex couples" and promise to revise them. Government has 30 days to appeal.

• Xtra 18 Jul 96: Feds appeal. Federal government announces it will extend medical and dental benefits to same-sex spouses of employees, but appeals 13 Jun 96 CHRC ruling that ordered revision of all related federal laws. (20 Sep 96 issue of Capital Xtra reports that federal court rejected government appeal, 4 Sep 96, and that it "is now obliged to present an equality plan" to CHRC tribunal on 17 Oct 96.)

1997

• Xtra 8 May 97: Rights line up. CHRC annual report says Revenue Canada has allowed for tax benefits for some private medical insurance plans that cover same- sex couples (details not given).

• Xtra 22 May 97: Liberals block spousal rights: Government's quiet appeal is shameful, NDPer says. In 19 May 97 campaign press conference (for federal election held 2 Jun 97), NDP candidate Olivia Chow condemns federal appeal of 1996 CHRC tribunal ruling "that ordered the government to amend the definition of common- law spouse to include the same- sex partners of its employees -- and to provide benefits to those partners." Government "attempting to create a new definition of same- sex partner, which would be separate from heterosexual common- law relationships". (Unclear from this story whether medical and dental benefits reported 18 Jul 96 were maintained.)

No stories were tracked for any of the issues below. For more on them -- and for some further developments on the issues above, to Oct 1997 -- see the section on Other rights in law in What we demanded; what we got.

Public housing

Right to accommodation without discrimination, in both public and private housing, would be specifically covered in provincial human rights codes, and more generally under Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Education

This is a provincial and municipal responsibility.

Adoption

Like child custody, this issue was addressed mostly in court decisions and provincial laws.

Private sector employment and accommodation

Same situation as under "Public housing" above.

Police harassment

Apart from those on the RCMP (the only police force directly accountable to the federal government), I have not tracked stories on police harassment.

Canadian Bill of Rights, 1960

Largely irrelevant after passage of the Canadian Human Rights Act in 1977. True constitutional human rights protection came only with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982 (in effect Apr 1985). For both, see Federal human rights protection.

What we demanded; What we got (Summary on Other rights in law)