R v Kapp

R v Kapp
Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: December 11, 2007 Judgment: June 27, 2008
Full case name	Her Majesty The Queen v John Michael Kapp et al
Citations	2008 SCC 41, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 483, 294 D.L.R. (4th) 1, [2008] 8 W.W.R. 1, 232 C.C.C. (3d) 349, 58 C.R. (6th) 1, 79 B.C.L.R. (4th) 201
Docket No.	31603
Prior history	Stay of proceedings granted, 2003 BCPC 279, [2003] 4 C.N.L.R. 238; Stay lifted, 2004 BCSC 958, (2004), 31 B.C.L.R. (4th) 258, [2004] 3 C.N.L.R. 269; Affirmed, 2006 BCCA 277 (CanLII), (2006), 56 B.C.L.R. (4th) 11, 271 D.L.R. (4th) 70, [2006] 10 W.W.R. 577, [2006] 3 C.N.L.R. 282
Ruling	A communal fishing license granted exclusively to Aboriginals does not violate s. 15 of the Charter because s. 15(2) enables governments to pro‑actively combat discrimination by developing programs aimed at helping disadvantaged groups to improve their situation
Court Membership
Reasons given
Majority	McLachlin C.J. and Abella J. (paras. 1-66), joined by Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Charron and Rothstein JJ.
Concurrence	Bastarache J. (paras. 67-123)
Laws Applied
Aboriginal Communal Fishing Licences Regulations, SOR/93‑332. Canadian Bill of Rights, R.S.C. 1985, App. III, s. 2. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 2, 3, 15, 16(3), 21, 25, 27, 28, 29, 32(a). Constitution Act, 1867, ss. 91(24), 93. Constitution Act, 1982, s. 35. Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1983, R.S.C. 1983, App. II, No. 46. Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F‑14. Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I‑5, ss. 81, 83, 85.1, 88.

R v Kapp is a 2008 Supreme Court of Canada case dealing with an appeal from a British Columbia Court of Appeal decision that held that a communal fishing license granted exclusively to Aboriginals did not violate section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the basis that the distinction based on an enumerated or analogous ground in a government program will not constitute discrimination under s. 15 if, under s. 15(2): (1) the program has an ameliorative or remedial purpose; and (2) the program targets a disadvantaged group identified by the enumerated or analogous grounds. In other words the court found that the prima facie discrimination was allowed because it was aimed at improving the situation of a disadvantaged group as allowed by s. 15(2) of the Charter.

This decision recognizes difficulty found with Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) in trying to employ “human dignity” as a legal test. No doubt that human dignity is an essential value underlying s.15, but it is an abstract and subjective notion that, even with the guidance of the 4 factors outlined in Law, are confusing to apply and have proven to be an additional burden on equality claimants. This case interprets Law so that it does not impose a new and distinctive test for discrimination, but rather affirms the approach to substantive equality set out in Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia and developed in the following decisions.

The central purpose of combatting discrimination underlies both ss.15(1) and 15(2). Section 15(1) focuses on preventing governments from making distinctions based on the enumerated or analogous grounds that have the effect of perpetuating group disadvantage and prejudice, or impose disadvantage on the basis of stereotyping. Section 15(2) focuses on enabling governments to proactively combat existing discrimination through affirmative measures.

References

Full text of R. v. Kapp SCC (CanLII)

Canadian Aboriginal law

Politics, law and legislation	Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada The Canadian Crown and Aboriginal peoples Canadian Indian residential school system High Arctic relocation Fred Quilt inquiry Ipperwash Crisis

Aboriginal law	Royal Proclamation of 1763 Constitution Act, 1867 Section Thirty-five of the Constitution Act, 1982 Douglas Treaties 1969 White Paper Kelowna Accord Numbered Treaties Indian Act Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples First Nations treaties in British Columbia Indian Health Transfer Policy

Case law	Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell R. v. Badger Calder v. British Columbia (Attorney General) Chippewas of Sarnia Band v. Canada (Attorney General) Corbiere v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs) Daniels v. Canada Delgamuukw v. British Columbia Native Women's Association of Canada v. Canada Kruger and al. v. The Queen R. v. Marshall; R. v. Bernard R. v. Marshall Mitchell v. M.N.R. Paul v. British Columbia Paulette Caveat Powley ruling R. v. Drybones R. v. Gladstone R. v. Gonzales R. v. Guerin R. v. Jim R. v. Pamajewon R. v. Sparrow Re Eskimos St. Catherines Milling v. The Queen R. v. Van der Peet Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia

International rights & laws	Definitions and identity of indigenous peoples Declaration of Indigenous Peoples Rights United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Indigenous intellectual property

See also Index of Aboriginal Canadian-related articles

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Thursday, January 08, 2015. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.