Bliss v. Canada (Attorney General)

SCCInfoBox
case-name=Bliss v. Canada (Attorney General)
full-case-name=Stella Bliss v. Attorney General of Canada
heard-date=June 7, 8, 1978
decided-date=October 31, 1978
citations= [1979] 1 S.C.R. 183
history=
ruling=Bliss appeal dismissed
ratio=
SCC=1977-1978
Unanimous=Ritchie J.
NotParticipating=
LawsApplied=

"Bliss v. Canada (Attorney General)" [1979] 1 S.C.R. 183 is a famous Supreme Court of Canada decision on equality rights for women under the Canadian Bill of Rights. The Court held that women were not entitled to benefits denied to them by the "Unemployment Insurance Act" during a certain period of pregnancy. This case has since become the prime example demonstrating the inadequacies of the Canadian Bill of Rights in protecting individuals' rights. This ruling was eventually overturned in "Brooks v. Canada Safeway Ltd.", [1989] 1 SCR 1219.

Background

Stella Bliss had to leave her work due to pregnancy four days before giving birth. Due to her situation she was not entitled to full benefits under section 30 of the Act, but rather she was subject to section 46 which denied her benefits for a period of six weeks after childbirth.

Bliss challenged the limitation of benefits under section 46 as a violation of section 1(b) of the Bill of Rights which protects against discrimination based on sex and ensures "the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law". Bliss claimed that the law violated her right to "equality before the law".

The Board of Referees, the employment tribunal of the day, rejected her claim, however on appeal to the "Umpire" she succeeded. At the Federal Court of Appeal the Umpire's decision was overturned.

Opinion of the Court

Justcie Ritchie, writing for a unanimous court, held that the Act was valid and did not violate the Bill of Rights equality provision.

Richie noted that the Act was a complete code that took into account the interests of women, and "any inequality between the sexes in this area is not created by legislation but by nature." This means that while the Bill of Rights guards against sex discrimination, in this case the discrimination was not against women but pregnant people. He rejected the argument that section 46 denied "equality before the law" and found that the Act was a perfectly valid exercise of Parliaments authority to create legislation.

Aftermath

The decision in this case later influenced the equality rights in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which was added to the Constitution of Canada in 1982. Like the equality rights in the Bill of Rights, the original version of section 15 spoke of equality before the law and equal protection of the law. When it was later enacted, section 15 also guaranteed equality under the law and equal benefit of the law. The reason for the addition of equal benefit of the law was Ritchie's finding in "Bliss" that legal benefits need not be equal. [cite book|last=Hogg|first=Peter W.|title=Constitutional Law of Canada|edition=2003 Student Ed|location=Scarborough, Ontario|publisher=Thomson Canada Limited|date=2003|pages=1066-1067]

In "Brooks v. Safeway Canada" (1989), the Supreme Court overturned "Bliss". The Court found discrimination against pregnant people to be discrimination against women under the provincial Human Rights Act of Ontario. Like "Bliss", "Brooks" was not a Charter case, though the Court did consider a definition of discrimination under the Charter case "Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia".

Notes

External links

* [http://www.lawsite.ca/femlaw/bliss.htm Full text]
* [http://canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/1978/1978scc10024.html full text at CanLII.org]