IAN BINNIE
The 1998 appointment of former Bay Street lawyer and associate deputy minister of justice met with criticism by some women's groups who called for the appointment of a woman jurist.
But in 2000, Mr. Justice Ian Binnie left his mark on the country's equality law with two rulings elaborating the meaning of discrimination.
He detailed the court's unanimous view of discrimination against the disabled in the case of Allan Granovsky. By giving special financial help to permanently disabled individuals, the Canada Pension Plan does not discriminate against the temporarily disabled, he wrote, because the rules do not demean the dignity of persons with temporary disabilities, nor do they cast "any doubt on their worthiness as human beings." Despite rejecting the discrimination claim, the decision contained a passionate discussion of the "common humanity that people with disability share with everyone else," and held up Beethoven, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Terry Fox, and Stephen Hawking as individuals whose brilliance and dedication transcended their physical limitations.
Once asked by activists to recuse himself from hearing a gay rights case after publicly describing a gala event as a "faggoty dress-up party," a comment for which he later apologized, Judge Binnie emerged as the author of the Little Sister's ruling seen as a major moral victory for Vancouver's gay community.
Judge Binnie sternly reprimanded Customs officials for harassing a Vancouver bookstore that imported gay erotica from the U.S., and ordered a change in procedures, but stopped short of striking down the Customs Act altogether. The "high-handed and dismissive" actions had violated "the legitimate sense of self-worth and human dignity of the appellants," he wrote.
A former lecturer in aboriginal law, Judge Binnie is best known as the author of the Marshall decision that said historic treaties gave Mi'kmaqs access to the Atlantic eel fishery. However, he joined the majority in the Musqueam ruling that Indian reserve lands have a lower rental value than others -- a decision condemned by aboriginal leaders.
Judge Binnie joined the strong dissent in the Pacific National case, finding that municipalities should be held liable for rezoning land sold to private developers.
CHARLES GONTHIER
A former Montreal lawyer, Mr. Justice Charles Gonthier has donned judge's robes for more than a quarter of a century. The court's second-longest serving judge, with diverse expertise, wrote several of the major decisions last year.
Frequently joining Judge L'Heureux-Dubé in opinions that underline the needs of vulnerable victims, Judge Gonthier wrote the unanimous decision in the case of Andrew Scott Darrach, which upheld a law that restricts the use of evidence about the past sexual activities of an alleged victim, even if they involved the accused.
He said the law must protect complainants from the twin myths "that a complainant is more likely to have consented or that she is less worthy of belief by reason of the sexual nature of the activity she once engaged in."
Judge Gonthier also wrote the majority Morrisey decision that defended mandatory minimum sentences against criticism that they took away discretion from sentencing judges to tailor punishments to individuals.
He also wrote the majority decision that prevented the Musqueam Indian band from imposing rental increases on reserve land leased to non-native homeowners, holding the land was worth less because it was located on a reserve.
He penned the unanimous ruling that ordered a stockbrokerage to pay a Quebec retiree $3.3-million for mismanaging his retirement money.
Judge Gonthier has in the past registered several notable dissents relating to the protection of the traditional family.
He was the lone dissenter in the case of M v. H that said same-sex couples should enjoy the same rights as common-law couples and wrote the dissenting opinion in the 1994 case of Miron v. Trudel, which extended spousal benefits to common-law couples.
"Where individuals choose not to marry, it would undermine the choice they have made if the state were to impose upon them the very same burdens and benefits which it imposes on married persons," he wrote.
Those two decisions formed the basis of the federal government's move last year to extend spousal benefits to common-law and same-sex couples.
Con't. |
