234:), the Quebec government provided those who were single, unemployed and under 30 years old with $ 170 per month in social assistance, which amounted to only a third of the regular benefits. Full benefits were only available if the individuals would participate in one of three employability programs: On-the-job Training, Community Work or Remedial Education. The objective behind it was to encourage youth to find work or go to school. According to the Supreme Court of Canada, the new scheme was based on the philosophy that the most effective way to encourage and enable young people to join the workforce was to make increased benefits conditional on participating in one of three of the
29:
399:
from their families more than older people and found there is not enough difference to warrant reducing funding to create such substandard living conditions. That unjustified detriment alone should be sufficient to find a violation of section 15. He further rejected the suggestion that the government's good intention (it was "for their own good") should have any bearing on the reasoning despite McLachlin's claim otherwise. Such reasoning should be left to section 1 analysis.
398:
When examining the correspondence between the treatment of the claimant and her actual needs, Bastarache noted that law can differentiate only between groups when there is a genuine difference. On the facts, he saw no evidence of any real difference. He rejected the assumption that youth receive help
241:
Louise
Gosselin was under age 30 during the period from 1984 to 1989. She struggled with psychological problems and drug and alcohol addictions and attempted to work as a cook, waitress, seller and nurses' assistant, among many other jobs. She was homeless periodically, lived in an unheated apartment
310:
McLachlin rejected the claim that the purpose "did not correspond to the actual needs and circumstances of the individuals" and that it effectively stereotyped youth. Rather it was "an affirmation of their potential". The majority found that youth do not suffer from any pre-existing disadvantage and
406:
In considering whether the violation could be saved under section 1, Bastarache acknowledged the need to give the government deference however, the government failed to show that the legislation was minimally impairing of the claimant's rights. There were many reasonable alternatives available that
394:
In
Bastarache's opinion, when he considered the existence of any pre-existing disadvantages, he claims McLachlin's assumption that persons under 30 have an easier time finding work was a stereotype that young welfare recipients do not suffer any special disadvantages, as none of the facts suggests
402:
Bastarache further took issue with the government's attempt to provide employment programs, as so few were able to stay in the program to receive full benefits. Less than 11% of youth on social assistance were in the program at any one time. Inevitably, all youth were forced to live on the third
349:
The question therefore is not whether section 7 has ever been —or will ever be— recognized as creating positive rights. Rather, the question is whether the present circumstances warrant a novel application of section 7 as the basis for a positive state obligation to guarantee adequate living
338:
not demonstrated that the government treated her as less worthy than older welfare recipients simply because it conditioned increased welfare payments on her participation in programs designed specifically to integrate her into the workforce and to promote her long-term
407:
would not have caused as much harm to persons under 30. For example, there was no evidence that increased funding would have foiled the government's objective. Furthermore, Bastarache noted many flaws in the program's execution that resulted in significant harm.
317:
Furthermore, the majority found there was no evidence to show that those who wanted to participate in the employment programs were refused participation. Thus, there could be no finding of discrimination by adverse effects.
355:
I conclude that they do not.... I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence in this case to support the proposed interpretation of section 7. I leave open the possibility that a positive obligation to sustain life,
395:
any such conclusion. He concedes that there is no evidence that youth are more disadvantaged than other welfare recipients, but the marginalized state of all welfare recipients warrants giving them extra consideration.
447:
rights, they are not stand-alone rights that trigger s. 7 in and of themselves." A purposive approach to
Charter interpretation, while coloured by an overarching concern with human dignity, democracy and other such
307:, McLachlin identified the government purpose was to promote short-terms autonomy among youth. The government was attempting to create an incentive for young people to participate in employment programs.
246:
250:
368:" provisions, and the evidence of actual hardship is wanting. The frail platform provided by the facts of this case cannot support the weight of a positive state obligation of citizen support.
437:
can be totally avoided by proceeding to a general examination of such values or that the court can through the process of judicial interpretation change the nature of the right. As held in
314:
McLachlin found that there was not enough evidence of harmful effects of the law. Rather, the claimants were merely representative of some individuals who had "fallen through the cracks".
286:
The
Supreme Court decided by 5–4 that there was no violation of section 15; by 7–2 that there was no violation of section 7; and by 6–1 that there was no violation of section 45 of the
471:
303:
439:
429:. Undoubtedly, I agree that respect for the dignity of all human beings is an important, if not foundational, value in this or any society, and that the interpretation of the
403:
benefit for at least some period of time. It was because all youth suffered in such a precarious position that their dignity was harmed and equality rights violated.
420:
Justice
Bastarache concurred with the majority finding that the law did not violate section 7 but offered a different reason for why that was the case:
559:
564:
206:
574:
554:
425:
The appellant ... argues that this Court has found that respect for human dignity underlies most if not all of the rights protected under the
255:
529:
579:
569:
274:, but only one found that it could not be saved by section 1. Another dissenting judge found a violation of section 45 of the Quebec
391:
Bastarache wrote the dissenting opinion on section 15 with L'Heureux-Dubé, Arbour and LeBel JJ concurring for the most part.
326:
McLachlin, with
Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Binnie and LeBel JJ concurring, found that there was no violation of section 7.
290:(two justices ruled that section 45 was unenforceable in this situation). The majority opinion was written by McLachlin CJ.
452:
values, must first and foremost look to the purpose of the section in question. Without some link to the language of the
364:
may be made out in special circumstances. However, this is not such a case. The impugned program contained compensatory "
329:
The primary reason for McLachlin's finding that there was no violation was because
Gosselin was unable to discharge her
99:
253:
right to life, liberty and security of the person. As well, she claimed that her social rights in section 45 of the
226:
Between 1984 and 1989, a period of alarming and growing unemployment among young adults, under section 29(a) of the
298:
McLachlin, with
Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, and Binnie JJ concurring, found there was not violation of section 15.
245:
Gosselin brought a class action on behalf of 75,000 individuals against the Quebec government for violation of her
263:
75:
There is violation of section 15(1) equality right for a law denying full social assistance benefits for youth.
539:
218:
challenge against a Quebec law excluding citizens under age 30 from receiving full social security benefits.
513:
211:
34:
361:
330:
433:
may be aided by taking such values into account. However, this does not mean that the language of the
28:
521:
242:
for one winter, and when she rented a room at a boarding house, she was left with no money for food.
344:
In examination of section 7, McLachlin also found that there was not enough evidence here either:
186:
88:
111:
526:
517:
103:
533:
107:
383:
Arbour JJ held in dissent that section 7 places positive obligations on the government.
548:
201:
123:
119:
60:
266:
was divided but ruled that the regulation did not violate the
Canadian or Quebec
127:
115:
365:
235:
357:
499:
Gosselin v. Quebec (AG), 4 SCR 429, 2002 SCC 84 at paragraph 214.
490:
Gosselin v Quebec (AG), 4 SCR 429, 2002 SCC 84 at paragraph 7.
270:. Two judges found a violation of section 15 of the Canadian
251:
Section Seven of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
210:
to a right to an adequate level of social assistance. The
143:
McLachlin, joined by Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major and Binnie
301:
In applying the analytical framework for section 15 from
472:
List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (McLachlin Court)
443:"hile notions of dignity and reputation underlie many
311:
were not more susceptible to negative preconceptions.
179:
171:
163:
155:
147:
139:
134:
95:
84:
79:
69:
59:
49:
42:
21:
54:Louise Gosselin v. The Attorney General of Quebec
16:Canadian claim for a right to social assistance
8:
204:, is the first claim under section 7 of the
456:, the legitimacy of the entire process of
483:
207:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
460:adjudication is brought into question.
18:
288:Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms
256:Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms
7:
14:
560:Section Fifteen Charter case law
27:
565:Section Seven Charter case law
1:
575:Youth rights in North America
555:Supreme Court of Canada cases
232:Règlement sur l’aide sociale
45:Judgment: December 19, 2002
596:
43:Hearing: October 29, 2001
580:2002 in Canadian case law
570:Social security in Canada
184:
74:
26:
190:, 1 SCR 497 (McLachlin)
514:Supreme Court of Canada
282:Supreme Court's opinion
281:
212:Supreme Court of Canada
35:Supreme Court of Canada
540:Gosselin advocacy site
516:decision available at
362:security of the person
264:Québec Court of Appeal
202:4 SCR 429, 2002 SCC 84
198:Gosselin v Quebec (AG)
65:4 SCR 429, 2002 SCC 84
22:Gosselin v Quebec (AG)
331:legal burden of proof
228:Social Aid Regulation
100:Claire L'Heureux-Dubé
249:equality rights and
374:Dissenting opinions
532:2005-05-03 at the
411:Concurring opinion
89:Beverley McLachlin
194:
193:
112:Michel Bastarache
587:
500:
497:
491:
488:
339:selfsufficiency.
104:Charles Gonthier
80:Court membership
31:
19:
595:
594:
590:
589:
588:
586:
585:
584:
545:
544:
534:Wayback Machine
509:
504:
503:
498:
494:
489:
485:
480:
468:
418:
413:
389:
381:
376:
324:
296:
284:
259:were violated.
224:
108:Frank Iacobucci
96:Puisne Justices
44:
38:
17:
12:
11:
5:
593:
591:
583:
582:
577:
572:
567:
562:
557:
547:
546:
543:
542:
537:
524:
508:
507:External links
505:
502:
501:
492:
482:
481:
479:
476:
475:
474:
467:
464:
463:
462:
417:
414:
412:
409:
388:
385:
380:
377:
375:
372:
371:
370:
352:
342:
341:
323:
320:
295:
292:
283:
280:
223:
220:
192:
191:
182:
181:
177:
176:
175:L’Heureux-Dubé
173:
169:
168:
165:
161:
160:
157:
153:
152:
149:
145:
144:
141:
137:
136:
132:
131:
97:
93:
92:
86:
82:
81:
77:
76:
72:
71:
67:
66:
63:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
32:
24:
23:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
592:
581:
578:
576:
573:
571:
568:
566:
563:
561:
558:
556:
553:
552:
550:
541:
538:
536:- broken link
535:
531:
528:
525:
523:
519:
515:
512:Full text of
511:
510:
506:
496:
493:
487:
484:
477:
473:
470:
469:
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
444:
441:
438:
434:
430:
426:
423:
422:
421:
415:
410:
408:
404:
400:
396:
392:
386:
384:
378:
373:
369:
367:
363:
359:
353:
351:
347:
346:
345:
340:
336:
335:
334:
332:
327:
321:
319:
315:
312:
308:
306:
305:
299:
293:
291:
289:
279:
277:
273:
269:
265:
260:
258:
257:
252:
248:
243:
239:
237:
233:
229:
221:
219:
217:
214:rejected the
213:
209:
208:
203:
200:
199:
189:
188:
183:
178:
174:
170:
166:
162:
158:
154:
150:
146:
142:
138:
135:Reasons given
133:
129:
125:
124:Louise Arbour
121:
120:John C. Major
117:
113:
109:
105:
101:
98:
94:
90:
87:
85:Chief Justice
83:
78:
73:
68:
64:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
36:
30:
25:
20:
527:case summary
495:
486:
459:
455:
451:
446:
442:
436:
432:
428:
424:
419:
405:
401:
397:
393:
390:
382:
354:
348:
343:
337:
328:
325:
316:
313:
309:
304:Law v Canada
302:
300:
297:
287:
285:
275:
271:
267:
261:
254:
244:
240:
231:
227:
225:
215:
205:
197:
196:
195:
187:Law v Canada
185:
180:Laws applied
53:
33:
128:Louis LeBel
549:Categories
478:References
416:Section 15
387:Section 15
350:standards.
294:Section 15
247:section 15
238:programs.
222:Background
151:Bastarache
116:Ian Binnie
379:Section 7
322:Section 7
61:Citations
530:Archived
466:See also
366:workfare
236:workfare
140:Majority
458:Charter
454:Charter
450:Charter
445:Charter
440:Blencoe
435:Charter
431:Charter
427:Charter
358:liberty
276:Charter
272:Charter
268:Charter
216:Charter
172:Dissent
164:Dissent
156:Dissent
148:Dissent
70:Holding
522:CanLII
167:Arbour
126:, and
518:LexUM
360:, or
159:LeBel
520:and
262:The
551::
333:.
278:.
130:JJ
122:,
118:,
114:,
110:,
106:,
102:,
91:CJ
230:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
