Religious Tolerance logo

1998: Gay Teacher Wins Major
Civil Rights Case in Alberta, Canada.

Part 1

two lesbians 10

horizontal rule

Delwin Vriend was a laboratory coordinator at King's University College in Edmonton, Alberta. He was:

"... given a permanent, full-time position in 1988. Throughout his term of employment he received positive evaluations, salary increases and promotions for his work performance. In 1990, in response to an inquiry by the president of the College, ... [Vriend] disclosed that he was homosexual. In early 1991, the college’s Board of Governors adopted a position statement on homosexuality, and shortly thereafter, the president of the college requested ... [his] resignation. ... [He] declined to resign, and his employment was terminated by the College. The sole reason given was his non-compliance with the college’s policy on homosexual practice. ... [He] appealed the termination and applied for reinstatement, but was refused. 1

This college is a liberal arts school with a student body of about 700. It is affiliated with the Christian Reformed Church, a conservative Christian denomination. 2

Vriend appealed to the Alberta Human Rights Commission, an arm of the Provincial government. But they refused to investigate his complaint, because discrimination on the basis of a person's sexual orientation was not within the scope of the Alberta Individual Rights Protection Act (IRPA). So, Vriend sued the Alberta Human Rights Commission in a trial court, where Madame Justice Anne Russell ruled in his favor.

During this time, in 1994, Jack O'neill, the chief commissioner of the Alberta Human Rights Commission and deputy Minister of Culture and Multiculturalism in the Alberta government, was asked to review the state of civil rights in the province. He found both angry opposition and spirited support for equal rights for gays. He recommended that the provincial Act be extended to protect people on the basis of their sexual orientation. The government declined to follow up on his recommendation.

horizontal rule

The case reached the Alberta Court of Appeal:

The Government appealed the case to the Alberta Court of Appeal . Respondents were:

bullet Delwin Vriend,
bullet Gay and Lesbian Awareness Society of Edmonton (GALA) ,
bullet Gay and Lesbian Community Centre of Edmonton, and
bullet Dignity Canada Dignité (an association of gay and lesbian Catholics and their supporters)

bulletSupporting Delwin Vriend were:
bullet Alberta Civil Liberties Association,
bullet Canadian Human Rights Commission,and
bullet Canadian Jewish Congress

bulletOpposing to Delwin Vriend were:
bullet Alberta Federation of Women United for Families,
bullet The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the main national Evangelical Christian group, and
bullet Focus on the Family (Canada) Association, a conservative Christian group.

The Court of Appeal, the highest court in the province, ruled against him on 1996-JUL-15. 3 The vote was 2:1. The majority decision stated that the omission of sexual orientation from the Individual Rights Protection Act was not a violation of section 15 of the Federal Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because the constitutionality of a civil rights act is not dependent on a perfect emulation of the Charter. (The Charter is Canada's Constitution).

Judge John Wesley McClung, writing for the majority, said that only the provincial legislature could change the legislation. He denied that sexual orientation could be "read into" the IRPA by the courts. He warned against "ideologically driven" decisions by courts. This was presumably a warning to the Supreme Court of Canada to not attempt to overrule the decision of the Alberta government. The Supreme Court had taken an pro-equality stance in the past on similar matters.

The sole dissenting judge on the Court of Appeal stated that the Alberta Legislature's omission of sexual orientation is tantamount to approving ongoing discrimination against homosexuals, and is thus a violation of section 15 of the Charter.

Sponsored link

The case Vriend v. Alberta was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada:

On 1996-OCT-30, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal. 4 John Fisher, the Executive Director of Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere (EGALE) commented:

"By agreeing to hear the case, the Supreme Court has recognized the importance of this issue. It is up to the Court to intervene, since the Legislature of Alberta has refused to accord equality to lesbian and gay Albertans. ... Alberta risks being seen as the dinosaur of the country and an embarrassment to Canadians unless its Legislature acts to treat all its citizens equally. ... It is a sorry day for the Province when the Government of Alberta is so committed to discrimination that it has to be dragged before the highest court in the land rather than extend equality."

Hal Joffe, Chairperson of the Canadian Jewish Congress' National Community Relations Committee stated that his group's':

"... interest is in ensuring that citizens who believe that they have been discriminated against because of their sexual orientation should not be denied the right to have the matter heard and adjudicated by the relevant Human Rights Commission. ... Our submissions have stressed this fundamental aspect of human rights, consistent with the federal Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Human Rights Act, rather than the ultimate disposition of any such complaint or the substantive aspects of Mr. Vriend’s grievance." 5

There were a total of 14 interveners in the Supreme Court case. One was the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, a leading national conservative Christian group. According to the EFC web site, their lawyer:

"... argued that the court must respect the elected legislature's decision not to include 'sexual orientation' in provincial human rights legislation."

Their lawyer also argued that if the court decided in favor of equal rights for persons with a homosexual orientation that:

"... there could be serious ramifications to the right of a religious organization to require their employees to adhere to moral standards based on the organization's religious beliefs." 6

In other words, the EFC's belief is that religious freedom includes the freedom for religiously-affiliated individuals, companies and organizations to discriminate against others in employment.

horizontal rule

Sponsored link:

horizontal rule

Three mechanisms had been suggested by which the Supreme Court could overrule the decision of the Alberta Court of Appeals:

bullet The court could declare the entire provincial anti-discrimination act to be unconstitutional, effective immediately. Unfortunately, this approach would deny citizens protection on the basis of their religion, gender, nationality, etc. for some time until the government of Alberta could create a replacement law.

bullet They could declare that a clause would be "read into" the existing law which extended the law to cover sexual orientation. That is, the law would be interpreted as if it had always contained a sexual orientation clause.

bullet They could declare the act to be unconstitutional and give the province a grace period in which to modify the law. This approach might prove difficult. It is not obvious how the legislature could pass such a law. Alberta is one of the most socially conservative of Canadian provinces. A 1996 poll by the Angus Reid Group indicated that 59% of Canadian adults favored protection against discrimination for gays and lesbians. But only 40% of Albertans agreed. It might be difficult for a majority of MLAs to vote in favor of such a bill. Legislators tend to be more conservative than the general population on ethical matters.

In advance of the decision, Pastor Olson, chairperson of the Edmonton Area Ministerial Association (EAMA) -- an evangelical Christian group -- said that if a Supreme Court of Canada ruling forces Alberta to recognize gays under its Individual's Rights Protection Act, it will give the moral stamp of approval to that sexual behavior. Olson said:

"We believe that lying, adultery, fornication, drunkenness are harmful, and so is homosexuality..."

The Supreme Court issued its ruling on 1998-APR-02. The Justices determined that the Alberta Individual Rights Protection Act violated the federal Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They "read into" the existing law a clause giving equal rights for persons of all sexual orientations. The vote was 7 to 1. Mr. Justice Jack Major expressed the minority position. Although he agreed that the exclusion of sexual orientation violated the Charter, he felt that the province should be allowed to repair the act on its own.

Mr. Justice Peter Cory wrote the majority decision, saying:

"The exclusion [of gays and lesbians] sends a message to all Albertans that it is permissible and perhaps even acceptable, to discriminate against individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation. ... Perhaps most important is the psychological harm which may ensure from this state of affairs. Fear of discrimination will logically lead to concealment of true identity, and this must be harmful to personal confidence and self-esteem."

horizontal rule

This topic concludes in the next essay

horizontal rule

References used:

The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above essay. Some of these hyperlinks are not active today.

  1. "Vriend v. Alberta, [1998]," Supreme Court of Canada, International Commission of Jurists, at: This is a PDF file.
  2. "The King's University, Wikipedia, as on 2017-JUN-03, at:
  3. The decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal in "Vriend v. Alberta" is at:
  4. Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere (EGALE), "Supreme Court of Canada Agrees to Hear Alberta Sexual Orientation Case" at:
  5. "CJC Intervenes before Supreme Court of Canada in Vriend Appeal," at:
  6. "Supreme Court rules Alberta's human rights law violates Charter," Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, at:
  7. Cor Labots, "Alberta Media Release: What is the Issue", Christian Heritage Party of Canada (CHP), 1996-FEB-29. See:
  8. Kirk Makin, "How Far Should Justices Go?", The Globe and Mail newspaper, Toronto ON, 1998-APR-2, Page A1
  9. "Alberta Gays Report Threats in Wake of Ruling on Rights," The Globe and Mail newspaper, Toronto ON, 1998-APR-9, Page A1, A6
  10. © Dip2000 | Dreamstime Stock Photos & Stock Free Images

horizontal rule

Copyright © Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Author: B.A. Robinson
Originally posted during: 1998
Latest update: 2017-JUL-16
line.gif (538 bytes)
Sponsored link

Go to the previous page, or go to the "homosexual news" menu, or choose:


Go to home page  We would really appreciate your help

E-mail us about errors, etc.  Hot, controversial topics

FreeFind search, lists of new essays...  Having problems printing our essays?

Twitter link

Facebook icon

GooglePage Translator:

This page translator works on Firefox,
Opera, Chrome, and Safari browsers only

After translating, click on the "show
original" button at the top of this
page to restore page to English.


Twitter icon

Facebook icon

About this site
About us
Our beliefs
Is this your first visit?
Contact us
External links

Recommended books

Visitors' essays
Our forum
New essays
Other features
Vital notes

World religions
Christian def'n
 Shared beliefs
 Handling change
 Bible topics
 Bible inerrancy
 Bible harmony
Interpret the Bible
 Beliefs & creeds
 Da Vinci code
 Revelation 666
Other religions
Cults and NRMs
Comparing Religions

Non-theistic beliefs

About all religions
Main topics
Basic information
Gods & Goddesses
Handling change
Doubt & security
Confusing terms
End of the World?
True religion?
Seasonal events
Science vs. Religion
More information

Morality & ethics
Absolute truth

Attaining peace
Religious tolerance
Religious freedom
Religious hatred
Religious conflict
Religious violence

"Hot" topics
Very hot topics
Ten Commandments
Abortion access
Assisted suicide
Death penalty

Same-sex marriage

Human rights
Gays in the military
Sex & gender
Stem cells
Other topics

Laws and news
Religious laws
Religious news