The following article was published on the op-ed page of the Toronto _Globe_&_Mail_ on Thursday 1992 12 03. It's written by a professor in the law faculty of the University of British Columbia, and is a pretty good summary of the legal-type position of lesbians and gays in Canada at present. It is keyed in without permission. Typos are mine. -------------------begin text----------------- CANADA'S NEW EQUAL CITIZENS: HOMOSEXUALS by Douglas Sanders / Vancouver Canadian law has fundamentally changed on lesbian and gay rights in recent years. The change has come in fits and starts, and the politicians have been very happy to let the courts do much of the work. The new patterns are striking: # Since 1986, federal lawyers have conceded that lesbians and gays are protected by the equality provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. # A British Columbia court decision in 1991 extended medicare benefits to same-sex partners on the same basis as heterosexual spouses. Lawyers for the [provincial] Vander Zalm government conceded that the Charter protects lesbians and gays. The Social Credit attorney-general decided against an appeal. # In August of this year, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the Canadian Human Rights Act must now be applied to protect lesbians and gays. Federal Justice Minister Kim Campbell decided against an appeal. # In the Leshner case in September, an Ontario human-rights tribunal struck out the words in the Ontario Human Rights Act that limited the word "spouse" to heterosexual partners, opening claims for family benefits for same-sex couples. This brought the Ontario law into line with the Charter. ONtario did not appeal. # In October, federal lawyers conceded that the military ban on homosexuals was in conflict with the Charter. A court order, approved by both sides, ended the ban. Australia followed suit last month. US president-elect Bill Clinton has promised to end the ban in the United States. # Last month, the BC Workers Compensation Board recognised a lesbian partner as a "spouse" for a survivor pension claim. There have been some losses. The Egan case, currently before the Federal Court of Appeal, denied spousal rights under the Canada Pension Plan to a couple wh had been together for 46 years. The Mossop case, concerning compassionate leave, is currently before the Supreme Court of Canada. The Federal Court of Appeal had rejected the claimant's request for a day's leave to attend the funeral of his lover's father. The judicial decisions in support of lesbian and gay rights are only the tip of the iceberg. My same-sex partner is covered as my "spouse" under the benefit plans at my place of employment and under provincial medicare rules. Family benefits have been extended in various collective agreeements and by public-sector employers such as the governments of British Columbia and Ontario. The Toronto and Ottawa YMCAs now have family membership rates for same-sex couples. Fortune magazine ran a cover story, Gay In Corporate America, noting the extension of benefit plans by US corporations. But a number of legal issues remain: # In June, Kim Campbell proposed amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act that would bar discrimination against gays and lesbians as individuals, but permit discrimination against same-sex couples in family benefits. That unprincipled compromise has been ruled out by the Leshner decision. Either we are equal as lesbians and gays or we are # Canadian immigration law must be reformed to let Canadians sponsor their non-Canadian partners in the same way that heterosexual Canadians can sponsor their spouses. The Immigration Department killed the major test case on immigration rights in September. It had rejected Bridget Coll as an individual applicant. When Ms Coll's Canadian partner of 18 years applied to sponsor her and took the issue to Court, Immigration reversed itself; it gave Ms Coll permanent residency status as an individual applicant, even waiving the standard personal interview. A dozen Canadians have since filed complaints with the Human Rights Commission against the Immigration Department on the sponsorship issue. # There should be equal treatment on issues of custody and access to children. Hundreds of lesbian and gay couples are raising children in Canada. When a heterosexual connection breaks up and one partner begins a homosexual relationship, there are often threats by the former partner to deny regular patterns of custody and access. Some judges react to such cases in a homophobic way, despite studies indicating that same-sex couples make good parents. What about access to legal marriage? A court case began in Ottawa on November 30 in which a gay couple are seeking the right to marry. In many ways, the case is really about discrimination in the immigration laws, for a Canadian is denied the right to sponsor his US partner. In fact, if lesbians and gays are treated equally in terms of family benefits, the issue of legal marriage becomes only a symbolic one. Twenty US cities have "registered partnerships," and similar arrangements are in place in Denmark and most parts of the Netherlands. Norway, Sweden Latvia and France are considering parallel reforms. These programs formally recognise same-sex relationships for the purposes of family benefits. There are major issues left . But we have been speeding toward a new legal system in which homosexuality is treated as irrelevant, and homosexuals are recognised as equal citizens of Canada. -------------------end of article------------------------------- -- Chris Ambidge / ambidge@ecf.toronto.edu / ambidge@ecf.utoronto.ca chemical engineering / university of toronto 200 college st / toronto ON / M5S 1A4 // 416 978 3106