313:, replied the court can take a larger role in evaluating the correctness of the comparison. To select a comparator group, Binie wrote groups must be similar except with respect to one characteristic which is the basis of discrimination. The government objective is important to consider, though Binnie cautioned that if the government's selected recipients for a benefit was narrowed too exclusively, section 15 would not protect this benefit on the grounds that members of the recipient group are equal to one another.
40:
317:
marriages were not legally or officially ended. Ms. Hodge had suggested that common law marriage should be seen as lasting beyond separation, if there is still some "economic dependency" between the partners. However, Binnie responded that
Parliament had selected cohabitation and not economics as the indicator for common law marriage. Thus, Binnie decided that Ms. Hodge's dignity should not be affected, and section 15 was not violated.
285:(2000). In this case, Binnie wrote that selecting the comparator group was not simply an initial step for section 15, and that each test for determining whether there has been discrimination should be done through comparisons. As questions of dignity or context are raised, the comparator group may be narrowed. Binnie felt this is what happened in the landmark section 15 case,
245:(1995). The rejection of Ms. Hodge's application was appealed to a Canada Pension Plan Review Tribunal in 1997. The tribunal held that the law was invalid because Ms. Hodge was denied a benefit for not living with Mr. Bickell for the full year up to his death. The Pension Appeals Board overturned this finding in 2000, noting that in requiring a year's residence, the
316:
With this in mind, Binnie rejected Ms. Hodge's comparator group of separated married people. While there was a distinction based on marital status, Ms. Hodge's relationship with Mr. Bickell had ended, and separated married spouses were different because while they may mean to end their marriages, the
304:
Binnie wrote that section 15 should not be twisted by claimants choosing comparator groups whose situations do not match their own. Thus, courts can reject a claimant's choice regarding a comparator group. While the
Federal Court of Appeal accepted the claimant's choice for a comparator group on the
222:
with a man named Mr. Bickell since 1972. Due to his alleged cruelties, she terminated the relationship in 1993. After an attempt to get back together in 1994, she ended the relationship once more. Ms. Hodge later testified in court that she meant for the second break-up to be ever-lasting. Mr.
279:(1989), comparator groups have been seen as being important to section 15 considerations. This means that a rights claimant is similar to one group, but has suffered differential treatment due to a different characteristic. This view was reaffirmed in
291:(1999). He went on to say that if, as section 15 tests are completed, it turns out the comparator group initially selected is not the most appropriate, a claim to section 15 may fail. Binnie referred to this situation as the "
261:. If Ms. Hodge had been married to Mr. Bickell before the break-up, she would have received a pension. Ms. Hodge compared herself to separated married people, and not divorcees, and the Federal Court accepted this comparison.
227:
for a survivor's pension. This application was rejected, on the grounds that Ms. Hodge was not Mr. Bickell's spouse at the time of his death. Separated married people would have received the pension, but
195:
326:
459:
207:
210:
are needed to demonstrate that one has suffered differential treatment. Courts may reject the rights claimant's view as to what an appropriate comparator group would be.
275:
439:
297:
199:
107:
444:
449:
454:
250:
17:
464:
249:
was merely trying to avoid more than one common law spouse claiming eligibility for a survivor's pension. In turn, the
416:
191:
93:
45:
345:
105:
The denial of a survivors pension for a separated common law spouse did not violate section 15 of the
39:
424:
246:
281:
224:
219:
124:
292:
135:
420:
241:
203:
147:
258:
254:
159:
155:
433:
287:
131:
71:
179:
Abella and
Charron JJ. took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
151:
143:
270:
253:
found in favour of Hodge in 2002. The
Federal Court found the rejection to be
139:
223:
Bickell died later in 1994, and had no money. Ms. Hodge then applied for the
236:
229:
305:
grounds that the claimant had evidence to back it up, Binnie, citing
298:
Granovsky v. Canada (Minister of
Employment and Immigration)
218:
The case began with one Betty Hodge, who was involved in a
235:
Common law marriage has been recognized as being equal to
76:
3 SCR 357, 2004 SCC 65, 244 DLR (4th) 257, 125 CRR (2d) 48
269:
The decision by the
Supreme Court was written by Justice
18:
Hodge v. Canada (Minister of Human
Resources Development)
187:
Hodge v Canada (Minister of Human
Resources Development)
33:
Hodge v Canada (Minister of Human
Resources Development)
327:
List of
Supreme Court of Canada cases (McLachlin Court)
65:
Minister of Human Resources Development v Betty Hodge
170:
165:
115:
99:
88:
80:
70:
60:
53:
32:
8:
460:Marriage, unions and partnerships in Canada
276:Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia
338:
200:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
108:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
202:. The Court found that in considering
190:, 3 S.C.R. 357 was a decision by the
29:
7:
346:SCC Case Information - Docket 29351
295:" in section 15 precedent such as
25:
440:Section Fifteen Charter case law
273:. He began by noting that since
38:
92:Judgment for Ms. Hodge in the
1:
445:Supreme Court of Canada cases
27:Supreme Court of Canada case
481:
450:Labour relations in Canada
56:Judgment: October 28, 2004
455:2004 in Canadian case law
178:
120:
104:
37:
54:Hearing: March 18, 2004
417:Supreme Court of Canada
348:Supreme Court of Canada
251:Federal Court of Appeal
239:under section 15 since
192:Supreme Court of Canada
94:Federal Court of Appeal
46:Supreme Court of Canada
419:decision available at
247:Parliament of Canada
171:Unanimous reasons by
465:Common-law marriage
282:Lovelace v. Ontario
225:Canada Pension Plan
220:common-law marriage
125:Beverley McLachlin
208:comparator groups
183:
182:
136:Michel Bastarache
16:(Redirected from
472:
403:
400:
394:
391:
385:
382:
376:
373:
367:
364:
358:
355:
349:
343:
129:Puisne Justices:
116:Court membership
42:
30:
21:
480:
479:
475:
474:
473:
471:
470:
469:
430:
429:
412:
407:
406:
401:
397:
392:
388:
383:
379:
374:
370:
365:
361:
356:
352:
344:
340:
335:
323:
267:
242:Miron v. Trudel
216:
204:equality rights
148:Marie Deschamps
127:
55:
49:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
478:
476:
468:
467:
462:
457:
452:
447:
442:
432:
431:
428:
427:
411:
410:External links
408:
405:
404:
395:
386:
377:
368:
359:
350:
337:
336:
334:
331:
330:
329:
322:
319:
293:Achilles' heel
266:
263:
259:marital status
255:discrimination
215:
212:
181:
180:
176:
175:
172:
168:
167:
163:
162:
160:Louise Charron
156:Rosalie Abella
122:Chief Justice:
118:
117:
113:
112:
102:
101:
97:
96:
90:
86:
85:
82:
78:
77:
74:
68:
67:
62:
61:Full case name
58:
57:
51:
50:
43:
35:
34:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
477:
466:
463:
461:
458:
456:
453:
451:
448:
446:
443:
441:
438:
437:
435:
426:
422:
418:
415:Full text of
414:
413:
409:
399:
396:
390:
387:
381:
378:
372:
369:
363:
360:
354:
351:
347:
342:
339:
332:
328:
325:
324:
320:
318:
314:
312:
308:
302:
300:
299:
294:
290:
289:
288:Law v. Canada
284:
283:
278:
277:
272:
264:
262:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
243:
238:
233:
231:
226:
221:
213:
211:
209:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
188:
177:
173:
169:
166:Reasons given
164:
161:
157:
153:
149:
145:
141:
137:
133:
132:John C. Major
130:
126:
123:
119:
114:
110:
109:
103:
98:
95:
91:
89:Prior history
87:
83:
79:
75:
73:
69:
66:
63:
59:
52:
48:
47:
41:
36:
31:
19:
398:
389:
384:Para. 25-26.
380:
375:Para. 21-22.
371:
362:
353:
341:
315:
310:
306:
303:
296:
286:
280:
274:
268:
240:
234:
217:
186:
185:
184:
128:
121:
106:
64:
44:
232:would not.
152:Morris Fish
144:Louis LeBel
434:Categories
333:References
271:Ian Binnie
214:Background
196:section 15
194:regarding
140:Ian Binnie
81:Docket No.
402:Para. 47.
393:Para. 44.
366:Para. 18.
357:Para. 17.
307:Granovsky
257:based on
230:divorcees
174:Binnie J.
72:Citations
321:See also
301:(2000).
265:Decision
237:marriage
198:of the
100:Holding
425:CanLII
84:29351
421:LexUM
423:and
309:and
311:Law
146:,
436::
206:,
158:,
154:,
150:,
142:,
138:,
134:,
111:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
