Talk:Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Pregnancy and sex discrimination

The article states "In practice, the enumerated grounds have been given liberal and broad interpretations. For example, discrimination on the basis of pregnancy has been ruled to be sex discrimination (Brooks v. Canada Safeway Ltd.)." However, Brooks was, as the decision itself states, not a Charter case. Although I have no doubt you'd reach the same finding if it were a Charter case, that might be original research; I was wondering if we can find an actual Charter case for this paragraph. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe Brooks is cited as representative of the court's shift to a "purposive" approach to interpretation, which is used in the interpretation of both section 15 and the Human Rights Act. I wouldn't necessarily call it original research as the meaning of a single word will often be used in several contexts. So, for example, the Court's interpretation of words like "sex" in the context of the Human Rights Act will typically be applied in the same way to other texts such as the Charter. However, you're right that the phrase is misleading and suggests that Brooks is a Charter case. A similar Charter case, of course, would be better. None come to mind at the moment, but I'll take look. -PullUpYourSocks 15:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy

WITH REGARDS TO S.15 ANALYSIS, KAPP IS CURRENTLY THE AUTHORITY AS AFFIRMED BY ERMINESKINE WHICH HAS MOVED AWAY FROM THE LAW TEST AND BACK TOWARDS ANDREWS.

"Meaning and purpose of equality

The concept of equality in Canada has its philosophical origins in the works of Albert Venn Dicey who believed in substantive equality (similar to what Milton Friedman called "equality of outcome"). Substantive equality acknowledges that people do not all have the same ability and attributes, and are not equal under the law. Instead, by treating people differently everyone will be subject to equal impact of the law. This form of equality developed in response to formal equality which applies law indiscriminately and does not differentiates between personal characteristics (often called the "similarly-situated" doctrine)."

I have attempted to verify the information in this paragraph in relation to Dicey. I am concerned that the first sentence is simply false. I have found no evidence that Dicey believes in substantive equality. On the contrary, Dicey's works suggest that he advocated formal equality with respect to the rule of law. I have attached a dubious footnote to this paragraph. A citation, if there is one, is in order. Otherwise, it may be necessary to remove it.Ben 05:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addition: Haig and Birch v. Canada

COI — I’m Graham Haig, plaintiff in Haig and Birch v. Canada, a landmark case that established sexual orientation is an analogous ground of discrimination under Section 15(1) of the Charter.

The case answered these questions:

• (i) Whether the Ontario Court retained jurisdiction to review Section 3(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act under Section 1 of the Charter;
• (ii) Whether the court could grant binding declaratory relief;
• (iii) Whether sexual orientation is an analogous ground under Section 15(1);
• (iv) Whether Section 3(1) infringes equality rights of lesbians and gays;
• (v) Whether any infringement is justified in a free and democratic society.

We sought declarations confirming protections for sexual orientation discrimination. The court ruled in our favor on all points.

Importantly, the court issued the **first-ever “positive remedy” in Canadian history**, reading sexual orientation into the Human Rights Act rather than striking it down — expanding protections without invalidating the law.

After the ruling, all provinces and territories except Alberta adopted it. Alberta’s case went separately to the Supreme Court.

Judgments: Ontario Court, Ontario Court of Appeal. Full texts: Substack. Discussion: CanLII commentary.

I believe this case deserves inclusion on the Section 15 page or its own article.

Ghaig (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

New reliable source confirms Haig & Birch v. Canada (1992) predates Egan

The Canadian Encyclopedia has recently updated its entry on the Canadian Human Rights Act to correctly identify Haig & Birch v. Canada (1992) as the first case to establish sexual orientation under Section 15 of the Charter, predating Egan v. Canada (1995).

Source: https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/canadian-human-rights-act

Relevant excerpt:

"In 1990, Graham Haig launched an independent constitutional challenge against the federal government. Haig and his legal team argued that the Canadian Human Rights Act violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it excluded gay people. Joshua Birch, a captain in the Royal Canadian Air Force who was discharged solely because he was gay, soon joined the case. Haig and Birch successfully argued that the omission of sexual orientation from the Canadian Human Rights Act constituted discrimination under the equality rights guarantee in section 15 of the Charter. In response, the Court created a positive Charter remedy by reading the term sexual orientation into the Canadian Human Rights Act. By May 1996, eight provinces had amended their human rights legislation to include sexual orientation. On 20 June 1996, Royal Assent was given to Bill C-33, which amended the Act to include sexual orientation as one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination."

This is a reliable, verifiable source that contradicts the current Wikipedia article, which lists Egan (1995) as the first case establishing sexual orientation as an analogous ground.

The article should be corrected to list:

• sexual orientation (Haig & Birch v. Canada [1992], Egan v. Canada [1995], Vriend v. Alberta [1998], M. v. H. [1999], Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada [2000])

Can an editor please review and make this correction? I have a COI, I am Graham Haig. Ghaig (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)