Canada (AG) v Lavell | |
---|---|
Hearing: February 22, 23, 26, 27, 1973 Judgment: August 27, 1973 | |
Full case name | The Attorney General of Canada v. Jeannette Vivian Corbiere Lavell; Richard Isaac, Leonard Staats, Clarence Jamieson, Rena Hill, Norman Lickers, William White, Nina Burnham, John Capton, Howard Lickers, Clifford Lickers, Mitchell Sandy, Ronald Monture, Gordon Hill, Sydney Henhawk, Ross Powless, Victor Porter, Frank Monture, Renson Jamieson and Vincent Sandy v. Yvonne Bédard |
Citations | (1973), 38 D.L.R. (3d) 481, 23 C.R.N.S. 197, 11 R.F.L. 333, [1974] S.C.R. 1349. |
Prior history | Judgment for Lavell in the Federal Court of Appeal Judgment for Bédard in the Supreme Court of Ontario |
Ruling | Appeals allowed. |
Holding | |
Section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act does not violate the right to equality before the law and the protection of the law, as guaranteed under Section 1 (b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights, and is therefore not inoperative. | |
Court membership | |
Chief Justice: Gérald Fauteux Puisne Justices: Douglas Abbott, Ronald Martland, Wilfred Judson, Roland Ritchie, Emmett Hall, Wishart Spence, Louis-Philippe Pigeon, Bora Laskin | |
Reasons given | |
Plurality | Ritchie J., joined by Fauteux C.J., and Martland and Judson JJ. |
Concurrence | Pigeon J. |
Dissent | Abbott J. |
Dissent | Laskin J., joined by Hall and Spence JJ. |
Laws applied | |
Canadian BilI of Rights, R.S.C. 1970, App. III; Indian Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-6. |
Canada (AG) v Lavell, [1974] S.C.R. 1349, was a landmark 5–4 Supreme Court of Canada decision holding that Section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act[1] did not violate the respondents' right to "equality before the law" under Section 1 (b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights. The two respondents, Lavell and Bédard, had alleged that the impugned section was discriminatory under the Canadian Bill of Rights by virtue of the fact that it deprived Indian women of their status for marrying a non-Indian, but not Indian men.
The Supreme Court's decision proved very controversial, later influencing the wording of Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms during the drafting process.