Фонд для равных семей
 | |
| Формация | 1994 |
|---|---|
| Штаб -квартира | Торонто , Онтарио |
Фондом для равных семей является канадская группа по правам геев и лесбиянок, основанная в 1994 году после провала законопроекта 167 в Законодательном собрании Онтарио . Мандат группы «посвящен достижению признания и равенства для однополых отношений и связанных с ними прав семьи посредством образования и судебных исков». Встреча этого мандата был достигнут путем вмешательства в различные юридические случаи прецедента, посредством представительства на различных парадах гордости и, в частности, в предъявлении обвинения в канадском федеральном правительстве за неспособность внести поправки в 58 федеральных законодательных актов, которые подвергались воздействию устава из-за определения супруга Полем
Создание
[ редактировать ]Фонд состоит из общественных активистов и адвокатов.
17 мая 1994 года Генеральный прокурор Онтарио представил законопроект о предоставлении однопозным парам с правами и обязательствами, равными парам общего права противоположного пола. Законодательство изменило бы определение «супруга» в 79 провинциальных законах. Законопроект был побежден голосом от 68 до 59 на втором чтении 9 июня 1994 года. [ 1 ]
Intervener
[ редактировать ]On multiple occasions, the Foundation sought and was granted intervener status in various court cases. An intervener is a party that has an interest in the case, but is not either the appellant or respondent.
- A lesbian couple had been in a long-term relationship. When the relationship ended, one of the women, M, made a claim for support from her former partner under the Ontario Family Law Act. The definition of spouse in the Act that applied to support orders did not include same-sex couples. M brought a Charter challenge to this definition. She won at the lower court level and the appeals level; the provincial government appealed each time, rather than the respondent H. In reaction to the success of the case at the Supreme Court of Canada, the Ontario government introduced and passed an Act, Bill 5, Amendments Because of the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in M. v. H. Act, 1999.
- M. v. H. - Court of Appeal for Ontario
- M. v. H. - Court of Appeal for Ontario - motion requesting intervener status
- M. v. H. - Supreme Court of Canada
- Delwyn Vriend was fired from his job at a church run college because he was gay. When he sought to bring a human rights complaint against his former employer, he was told that he could not do so because the Individual Rights Protection Act of Alberta did not protect people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Vriend and three lesbian and gay groups then brought a Charter challenge. They claimed that the government and Legislature of Alberta were discriminating by their refusal to add protection on the basis of sexual orientation to Alberta's human rights act despite repeated calls to do so. The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously held that the Alberta Individual Rights Protection Act treated lesbians and gay men in a discriminatory fashion and denied them equal protection and equal benefit of the law. This discrimination could not be reasonable justified in a free and democratic society.
Rosenberg
- Two women, Nancy Rosenberg and Margaret Evans, had both received the employee benefits offered by the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) for their lesbian partners. When CUPE was unable to register its plan to include same-sex survivor benefits, the two women challenged the Income Tax Act's definition of "spouse". They said that they were being discriminated against under s. 15(1) of the Charter of Rights & Freedoms, which guarantees that every individual has the right to equal benefit of the law without discrimination. The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision, overturned the lower court's decision and found that the restrictive definition of "spouse" in the Income Tax Act violated the Charter. The Court determined that the appropriate remedy was the immediate reading in of same-sex partners into the definition of "spouse" as it relates to private pension plans. The federal government decided not to appeal this decision. This case led to amendments to the Income Tax Act recognising same-sex common-law spouses.
- Summary to come
Jane Doe & Doe
- Summary to come
- Jane Doe v. Canada (Attorney General) - Superior Court of Justice
- Jane Doe v. Canada (Attorney General) - Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Doe v. Canada (Attorney General) - Superior Court of Justice
- Summary to come
Parliamentary appearances
[edit]Representatives of the Foundation have made appearances in front of several Canadian parliamentary standing committees.
- Michelle Douglas and Susan Ursel discuss the support of Bill C-23, the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights - March 15, 2000[permanent dead link]
- Michelle Douglas and David Corbett discuss the Foundations support of civil marriage at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights - February 11, 2003[permanent dead link]
Education
[edit]The education portion of the mandate was achieved through participation in various cities pride events, including Toronto, London, Windsor and Ottawa. Various legal "fact sheets" were drawn up providing summaries of various legal decisions that affect the LGBT community.
Also, information sessions were held discussing the impact of various legislative changes, "[i]n fact, just last week the foundation sponsored a seminar on the new Income Tax Act provisions that affect same-sex couples" [2]
Omnibus lawsuit
[edit]After a lack of legislative change to the multitude of federal legislation in relation to recognition of same-sex common-law spouses, the Foundation served an omnibus legal challenge to 58 federal Acts. The lawsuit, Foundation for Equal Families v. Canada (Attorney General) (1999), 36 C.P.C. (4th) 201 (S.C.J.), was served on the Federal Government on January 7, 1999. Extensive news coverage appeared both nationally and internationally; a BBC news article.
The case was ultimately settled once the government introduced and passed the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act.
Ни в суде, ни в Законе о модернизации льгот и обязательств рассматривались или не упомянули о предоставлении доступа к браку.
Директора
[ редактировать ]Было несколько директоров фонда, включая:
- Мишель Дуглас - «Я была защитником равного обращения с геями и лесбиянками более десяти лет. Я никогда не представлял эту роль для себя, но когда меня уволили канадские вооруженные силы за то, что он лесбиянка, у него была глубокое влияние на меня. [ 2 ]
- Сьюзен Урсель
- Боб Галлахер
- Дэвид Корбетт
- Марси Н. Уэкслер
- Керри Троманхаузер
- Валери Дугале
Смотрите также
[ редактировать ]
Ссылки
[ редактировать ]- ^ Дискуссия за архив 2005-09-11 на машине Wayback и голосуйте во втором чтении.
- ^ Jump up to: а беременный «Парламентские деловые мероприятия, календарь и публикации - Палата общин Канады» . cmte.parl.gc.ca.
Внешние ссылки
[ редактировать ]- Официальный веб -сайт на машине Wayback (архивировано 28 мая 2005 г.)
- Valerie Dugale Fonds - архивные записи в канадских лесбиянках и геев