Canada (AG) v Lavell facts for kids

Kids Encyclopedia Facts

Quick facts for kids Canada (AG) v Lavell
Supreme Court of Canada
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 was an important case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1973. The court ruled 5-4 that a part of the Indian Act (Section 12(1)(b)) did not go against the right to "equality before the law" in the Canadian Bill of Rights.

This case was about whether Indigenous women lost their official "Indian status" if they married someone who was not a registered Indian. However, Indigenous men did not lose their status if they married a non-Indian woman. Two women, Jeannette Lavell and Yvonne Bédard, argued that this rule was unfair and discriminatory.

The Supreme Court's decision caused a lot of debate. It later influenced how Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was written, which is a very important part of Canada's laws about equality.

Mrs. Lavell's Story
- Judge Grossberg's Decision
- Federal Court of Appeal's Decision
Mrs. Bédard's Story
- Ontario Supreme Court's Decision
Supreme Court of Canada's Decision
Why This Case Was Important
- How Lavell Influenced the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
- What Happened After for the Indian Act
See also

Mrs. Lavell's Story

Jeannette Lavell was a member of the Wiikwemkoong First Nation. In April 1970, she married David Lavell, who was not a registered Indian. Soon after, the Department of Indian Affairs told her she would no longer be considered an Indian by law.

In December 1970, her name was removed from the official Registry. Mrs. Lavell tried to fight this decision, but she was not successful at first.

She asked a judge to review the decision. Mrs. Lavell argued that Section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act was unfair. She said it took away her right to equality, which was promised by the Canadian Bill of Rights. She pointed out that only Indigenous women lost their status when marrying a non-Indian, while Indigenous men did not.

The government's lawyers argued that the Indian Act was not discriminatory. They said that Mrs. Lavell should be compared to all married Canadian women, not just married Indigenous men.

Judge Grossberg's Decision

Judge B.W. Grossberg supported the decision to remove Mrs. Lavell's status. He believed that the Indian Act treated all married women, whether Indigenous or not, equally.

He said that Mrs. Lavell, by marrying, gained the same rights as all other married Canadian women. He also suggested that it was a good thing she was no longer considered an Indian under the Act, as she now had the same rights as all Canadians.

Federal Court of Appeal's Decision

Mrs. Lavell appealed Judge Grossberg's decision. She argued that he was wrong about the Indian Act not violating her right to equality.

The Federal Court of Appeal agreed with Mrs. Lavell. Justice Thurlow wrote the court's decision. He said that for the Indian Act to be fair, it had to treat Indigenous women the same way it treated Indigenous men.

Justice Thurlow explained that both Indigenous men and women could marry non-Indigenous people. However, the Indian Act had different results for them. An Indigenous man who married a non-Indian would keep his status. His wife could even become registered as an Indian. But an Indigenous woman would lose her status.

Because of this, Justice Thurlow declared that the part of the Indian Act that removed Mrs. Lavell's status was unfair and could not be used.

Mrs. Bédard's Story

Yvonne Bédard was born on the Six Nations Indian Reserve. She was a member of the Iroquois Nation. In 1964, she married a non-Indian man and had two children. They lived off the Reserve.

In 1970, Mrs. Bédard separated from her husband and moved back to the Reserve with her children. She moved into a house her mother had left her. Because she had married a non-Indian, she was no longer listed as an Indian.

The Six Nations Band Council told Mrs. Bédard she had to leave the property. She eventually transferred ownership of the house to her brother, who was a registered member of the Band. However, Mrs. Bédard and her children continued to live there with her brother's permission.

Later, the Band Council asked for Mrs. Bédard to be removed from the Reserve. Mrs. Bédard went to court to stop her expulsion. She argued that being removed from the Reserve and losing her Indian status because of her marriage was unfair. She said it was discrimination based on her sex and race. She believed it violated her right to enjoy property, as protected by the Canadian Bill of Rights.

The Band Council argued that not every difference in law is discrimination. They said that Indigenous women might have some "advantages elsewhere in the Act" that made up for any disadvantages.

Ontario Supreme Court's Decision

Judge Osler, in the Ontario Supreme Court, ruled that Section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act was unfair and could not be used.

He disagreed with the idea that other parts of the Indian Act could "make up" for the disadvantages faced by Indigenous women. He stated that losing Indian status and the right to live on a reserve was clearly harmful to Indigenous women.

Judge Osler agreed with the Federal Court of Appeal's decision in Mrs. Lavell's case. He found that because Indigenous women faced a different outcome for marrying a non-Indian spouse, it was clearly discrimination based on sex regarding their property rights.

Therefore, he declared that Section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act was invalid. He also said that any actions taken by the Band Council to remove Mrs. Bédard were not valid.

Supreme Court of Canada's Decision

Both Mrs. Lavell's and Mrs. Bédard's cases were appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada and heard together.

In a close 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court of Canada decided to allow the appeals. This meant they overturned the decisions of the Ontario Supreme Court and the Federal Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act was valid and did not violate the Canadian Bill of Rights.

Why This Case Was Important

How Lavell Influenced the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

The Supreme Court's decision in the Lavell case was very controversial. It played a big role in how the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was later written. The Charter is a very important part of Canada's Constitution that protects people's rights.

The way the Supreme Court interpreted the Canadian Bill of Rights in cases like Lavell was seen as too narrow. This made many people push for a stronger set of rights that would be harder to change, like the Charter.

When the Charter was being written, an early version of Section 15 said:

15. (1) Everyone has the right to equality before the law and to the equal protection of the law without discrimination because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age or sex. (2) This Section does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged persons or groups.

Because of the Lavell decision, where the court said "equality before the law" only meant that laws had to be applied equally, not that the laws themselves had to be fair, Section 15(1) was changed. The words "equality under the law" were added. This change made it clear that the Charter's equality guarantees were broad enough to mean that the laws themselves had to be fair and equal, not just how they were applied.

What Happened After for the Indian Act

The Supreme Court's decision in Lavell meant that Section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act remained in place. This continued to have serious effects on Indigenous women. If an Indigenous woman married a non-Indian man, she and her children would lose their Indian status.

This loss of status meant they could not:

Live on their reserve.
Inherit family property.
Receive benefits from treaties.
Take part in band councils or other community matters.
Be buried in cemeteries with their ancestors.

This was very different from non-Indigenous women who married Indigenous men. They would actually gain Indian status.

Between 1958 and 1968, about 4,605 Indigenous women lost their Indian status because they married non-Indigenous men.

Section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act was finally removed in 1985 by the Parliament of Canada. This happened after the United Nations International Human Rights Commission ruled that taking away Indian status based on sex was against international law.