FOOT NOTES

1.EGALE Canada Inc. V. Canada (Attorney General) (2003), 13 B.C.L.R. (4th) 1 (C.A.) (“EGALE Appeal”) in the Book of Authorities of the Attorney General of Canada (“AGC Authorities”) Vol. 1, Tab 8;
Halpern v. Canada (Attorney General (2002), 60 O.R. (3d) 321 (Div. Ct.) (“Halpern”) AGC Supplementary Authorities Tab 2;
Halpern v. Canada (Attorney General), 2003 65 O.R. (3rd), 161 (C.A.) (“Halpern Appeal”) AGC Authorities, Vol. 1 Tab 12;
Hendricks et. al. V. Québec (Procureur général) et. al., [2002] R.J.Q. 2506 (Sup. Crt) (“Hendricks”) AGC Authorities, Vol. 1, Tab 14;
La Ligue catholique pour les droits de l’homme c. Hendricks et al., [2004]
(No. 500-09-012719-027) (Qué. C.A.) (March 19, 2004), (“Hendricks Appeal”) AGC Supplementary Authorities Tab 4.

2. The Canadian Commission uses the word religious marriage to describe marriages which take place within the doctrine of a faith community. In our view, these marriages are not civil marriages simply because they are licensed by or registered with the state. Civil marriages, by contrast, lack the doctrinal characteristics of religious marriage, and are engaged in by a couple for the purpose of entering a legal rather than a religious institution. The classic distinction would be between a marriage in a church conducted by the couple’s clergy, and a marriage at “city hall” by a justice of the peace.

3. Halpern Appeal at paragraph 8, AGC Authorities Vol. 1 Tab 12.

4. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act, 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11, (“Charter”) AGC Authorities, Vol. 111 Tab 40.

5. Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S., 1985, c. H-6 (“CHRA”), sections 2-24, Canadian Commission Factum, Tab 1

6. Halpern Appeal at paragraphs 41 and 42, AGC Authorities, Vol. 1, Tab 12.

7. Halpern Appeal at paragraph 8, AGC Authorities, Vol. 1, Tab 12.

8. Halpern Appeal, paragraph 107, AGC Authorities Vol.1, Tab 12.

9. British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Committee) v. British Columbia Government and Service Employee’s Union (B.C.G.S.E.U.) (Meiorin Grievance) [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3, in the Book of Authorities of the Canadian Commission (“Canadian Commission Authorities) Tab 1 adopting the observations of Day and Brodsky, “The Duty To Accommodate: Who Will Benefit?” (1996), 75 Can. Bar Rev. 433.

10. Charter, Section 32, Factum of AGC, Tab 2; See for example the reference to services in section 5 of the CHRA, section 5 (“It is a discriminatory practice in the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public...), Canadian Commission Factum Tab 1;

11. Halpern Appeal at paragraph 69, AGC Authorities Vol. 1, Tab 12

12. The only exception to this appears to be Brillinger. The case was originally decided by the Ontario Board of Inquiry (as it was then). A private service-provider was ordered to provide printing services to “lesbians and gays and to organizations in existence for their benefit”, despite the fact that the respondent felt that his religious beliefs precluded him from providing such a service. The respondent was also required to pay the complainant $5000.00. The decision was appealed to the Ontario Court of Justice, Divisional Court. The Divisional Court found that there were conflicting rights engaged by the case and that the original order of the Board was so broad as to extend beyond what was reasonably necessary to ensure the rights of the complainant to be free of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The Court upheld the Board’s finding of discrimination as well as the monetary award. The Court then altered the Board’s order as it related to the provision of the service and built in an exception for printed material which could reasonably be considered to be in direct conflict with the core elements of the respondent’s religious beliefs. In making this order, the Court contradicted its own assertion, earlier in the decision, that it had no power to “read in” a religious exemption which the Ontario legislature had chosen not to include in the Ontario Human Rights Code. The decision remains an anomaly in statutory human rights jurisprudence. Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v. Brillinger, [2002] O.J. No. 2375 (Div. Ct.), Canadian Commission Authorities Tab 6.

13. Hill v. Woodside (1998), 33 C.H.R.R. D/349 (N. B. Bd. Inq.); Hudler v. London (City)(1997), 31 C.H.R.R. D/500 (Ont. Bd. Inq.) Canadian Commission Authorities Tabs 3 and 4. In Hudler, the Mayor of the City of London asserted that issuing the proclamation violated her rights under section 2(b) of the Charter. However her desire not to “speak” the proclamation in question was based on her Evangelical Christian beliefs.

14. Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15 [1996] 1 S.C.R. 825, Canadian Commission Authorities (“Ross”), Tab 7

15. Ross, Canadian Commission Authorities, Tab 7

16. Ross, at paragraph 72, Canadian Commission Authorities, Tab 7

17. Ross at paragraph 88, Canadian Commission Authorities, Tab 7

18. Chamberlain vs. Surrey School District No. 36 [2002] 4 S.C.R. 710, (“Chamberlain”) at paragraph 25, Canadian Commission Authorities, Tab 2.

19. Trinity Western University vs. British Columbia College of Teachers [2001] 1 S.C.R. 772 (“Trinity”) at paragraphs 30 and 36, Canadian Commission Authorities, Tab 8

20. Halpern Appeal, at paragraph 91, AGC Authorities, Vol. 1 Tab 12

21. Halpern Appeal at paragraph 71, AGC Authorities, Vol. 1 Tab 12.

22. Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497, (“Law”) at paragraph 2, Canadian Commission Authorities, Tab 5

23. Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493 (“Vriend”) at paragraph 69, Canadian Commission Authorities, Tab 9