|
''Canada (AG) v Lavell'', () S.C.R. 1349, was a landmark 5–4 Supreme Court of Canada decision holding that Section 12(1)(b) of the ''Indian Act''〔R.S.C. 1970, c. I-6.〕 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. ==Background to Mrs. Lavell== Mrs. Lavell,〔Mrs. Lavell was born Jeannette Vivian Corbiere.〕 a member of Wikwemikong Band of Indians, married David Lavell, a journalism student at Ryerson Institute in Toronto, on April 11, 1970. She was promptly delivered a notice from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development indicating that due to her marriage to a person not registered as Indian, she would no longer be considered an Indian by law. On December 7, 1970, the Indian Registrar deleted her name from the Registry in accordance with Section 12(1)(b) of the ''Indian Act''. Mrs. Lavell disputed her loss of status to the registrar, but without success. At Mrs. Lavell's request for judicial review of the Registrar's decision, Mrs. Lavell's case was referred to Judge B.W. Grossberg of the York County Court as per section 9(3) of the ''Indian Act''.〔() S.C.R. 1349 at 1376.〕 Mrs. Lavell argued that Section 12(1)(b) of the ''Indian Act'' was inoperative due to an irreconcilable abridgement of her right to equality before the law, guaranteed by the ''Canadian Bill of Rights''. In particular, Mrs. Lavell asserted that the ''Indian Act'' discriminated against Indian women since only they lost their status as an Indian under the ''Act'', whereas Indian men could marry whomever they so desired without adverse legal consequence. The decision of registrar, she argued, must therefore be reversed. In the case's proceedings, counsel for the Attorney General of Canada presented evidence to the court demonstrating that Mrs. Lavell had not lived on a single reserve for a period of nine years before her marriage and that she had only made a few "sporadic" visits to her family.〔''RE Lavell v. Attorney General of Canada'' (1972), 22 D.L.R. (3d) 182 at 187.〕 Furthermore, counsel argued that as far as the law was concerned, the ''Indian Act'' did not discriminate against Indian women. In defence of this proposition, counsel noted that the Supreme Court has rejected the 'similarly-situated doctrine' as the appropriate measure of a party's equality before the law.〔''The Queen v. Drybones'', () S.C.R. 282, overruling ''R. v. Gonzales'' (1962), 32 D.L.R. (2d) 290, 132 C.C.C. 237, 37 C.R. 56 (B.C.C.A.). In ''Drybones'' discrimination was ruled to have occurred between Indians and Canadians (i.e. Indians were prohibited from becoming intoxicated off a reserve, whereas Canadians were free to become intoxicated without penalty) and not between fellow Indians (e.g. the law prohibited all Indians from becoming intoxicated off a reserve).〕 The appellant, Mrs. Lavell, therefore, counsel for the Attorney General argued, must be compared not to married Indian men, but to all married Canadian women in order to establish whether or not discrimination has in fact occurred by reason of sex. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Canada (AG) v Lavell」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|