Corbiere v Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs) facts for kids
Quick facts for kids Corbiere v Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs) |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Hearing: October 13, 1998 Judgment: May 20, 1999 |
|
| Full case name | Her Majesty The Queen as represented by the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and the Attorney General of Canada, and Batchewana Indian Band v. John Corbiere, Charlotte Syrette, Claire Robinson and Frank Nolan, each on their own behalf and on behalf of all non-resident members of the Batchewana Band |
| Citations | [1999] 2 S.C.R. 203 |
| Court membership | |
| Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer Puisne Justices: Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie |
|
| Reasons given | |
| Majority | McLachlin and Bastarache JJ., joined by Lamer C.J., Cory and Major JJ. |
| Concurrence | L'Heureux‑Dubé J., joined by Gonthier, Iacobucci and Binnie JJ. |
| Laws applied | |
| Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497 | |
Corbiere v Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs) was an important case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1999. This case helped to make Section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms stronger. It expanded the types of reasons people could use to claim their rights were unfairly treated. This was also the first time the Court used a new way of thinking about equality rights, which came from another case called Law v. Canada.
Contents
What Was the Case About?
This case was started by members of the Batchewana Indian Band. They were fighting for the rights of all band members who did not live on the reserve. They believed a rule in the Indian Act was unfair.
The Unfair Voting Rule
The Indian Act is a Canadian law that deals with many things about First Nations people and reserves. Section 77(1) of this Act said that only band members who "ordinarily resident" (meaning usually lived) on the reserve could vote in band elections.
This rule was a problem because only about one-third of the Batchewana Band members actually lived on the reserve. This meant many members could not vote for their leaders. They felt this rule violated their equality rights under the Charter.
The Court's Decision
The Supreme Court of Canada looked at the case and made a big decision. All the judges agreed that the rule in the Indian Act was unfair. They said it went against Section 15(1) of the Charter.
How the Judges Agreed and Disagreed
Even though all judges agreed the rule was unfair, they had different ideas about how to apply the test for equality rights. Five judges had one opinion, and four judges had another.
The Majority Opinion
Justices McLachlin and Bastarache wrote the main opinion for the majority of the judges. They said that if a group is treated unfairly, the reason for this unfairness must be based on something that cannot be changed. This is called an "immutable" quality.
For example, your race is something you cannot change. Your religion is also seen as something you cannot easily change. The judges said that once something is identified as an "immutable" quality, it should always be protected under the Charter.
The Minority Opinion
Justice L'Heureux-Dubé wrote the opinion for the four other judges. While they agreed with the final result, they had slightly different reasons for how they reached that conclusion.
Why This Case Matters
Corbiere v Canada was very important for several reasons:
- It made it clearer that the government cannot treat people differently based on where they live, especially if it affects their basic rights like voting.
- It helped define what kinds of differences (like where you live if you're a band member) can be considered "analogous grounds" for equality claims under the Charter.
- It showed how the Supreme Court would use the new framework from the Law v. Canada case to decide equality rights issues.
This case helped make sure that all members of a First Nation band, whether they live on or off the reserve, have equal rights to participate in their community's decisions.
See also
- List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (Lamer Court)
- The Canadian Crown and First Nations, Inuit and Métis
- Canadian Aboriginal case law
- Numbered Treaties
- Indian Act
- Section Thirty-five of the Constitution Act, 1982
- Indian Health Transfer Policy (Canada)
