Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Limits of Dignity at the Intersection of Autonomy, Identity and Affect: A Cautionary Tale from the Supreme Court of Canada

  • Published:
Feminist Legal Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This survey of the Supreme Court of Canada’s pivotal anti-discrimination rulings over a 30-year period assesses the extent to which the shifting nature of the grounds approach and the Court’s conceptions of dignity together form part of a gendered system of enunciation at the intersection of autonomy, identity and affect. This article is written as a corrective to some of the author’s early optimism about the possibilities that dignity may offer in the context of constitutional equality rights cases and as a cautionary tale for those who would attempt to use it as a vehicle for rights claiming through the courts. These cases reveal that in the context of Canadian anti-discrimination law, the concept of dignity is most often used to circumscribe agency, limit subjectivity and curtail possibilities for redress by reducing large scale structural problems to the individual in ways that reproduce law’s originary violence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Andrews v. Law Society of BC, [1989] 1 SCR 143,

  2. s. 1 of the Canadian Charter is also referred to as the reasonable limits clause as it allows governments to limit Charter rights provided the limits can be ‘demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. See R. v. Oakes [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103.

  3. Andrews Judgment (McIntyre, J.), supra n 1, 158–192.

  4. Andrews Judgment (McIntyre, J.), supra n 1, 181.

  5. Andrews Judgment (McIntyre, J.), supra n 1, 181–182.

  6. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11. Section 15 of the Charter reads: 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. (2) Sect. (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability (My emphasis).

  7. Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497.

  8. R. v. Kapp, [2008] 2 S.C.R 483.

  9. Gosselin v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2002] 4 S.C.R. 429.

  10. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Walsh, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 325.

  11. Quebec (Attorney General) v. A, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 61.

  12. Central des Syndicats du Québec v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2018] 1 S.C.R. 522.

  13. Andrews Judgment (McIntyre, J.), supra n 1, 172.

  14. Andrews Judgment (McIntyre, J.), supra n 1, 175.

  15. Andrews Judgment (McIntyre, J.), supra n 1, 182.

  16. Ontario Human Rights Commission and O'Malley v. Simpson Sears, [1985] 2 SCR 536, 551.

  17. Andrews Judgment (McIntyre, J.), supra n 1, 165.

  18. Andrews Judgment (McIntyre, J.), supra n 1, 166–171.

  19. Andrews Judgment (McIntyre, J.), supra n 1, 164.

  20. Andrews Judgment (McIntyre, J.), supra n 1, 165, 174, 175, 181.

  21. Andrews Judgment (McIntyre, J.), supra n 1, 171.

  22. Law Judgment (Iacobucci, J.), supra n 7.

  23. See footnote 21.

  24. Egan v. Canada, [1995] 2 SCR 513; Miron v. Trudel, [1995] 2 SCR 418.

  25. Thibaudeau v. Canada [1995] 2 SCR 627.

  26. Egan Judgment (L'Heureux-Dubé, J.), supra n 24, 546.

  27. Egan Judgment (L'Heureux-Dubé, J.), supra n 24, 517.

  28. Egan Judgment (L'Heureux-Dubé, J.), supra n 24, 537.

  29. Kapp Judgment (McLachlin, C.J. and Abella, J.), supra n 8 par. 22.

  30. Andrews Judgment (McIntyre, J.), supra n 1, 164.

  31. Egan Judgment (L'Heureux-Dubé, J.), supra n 24, 545.

  32. Egan Judgment (L'Heureux-Dubé, J.), supra n 24, 546.

  33. Egan Judgment (L'Heureux-Dubé, J.), supra n 24, 546.

  34. Law Judgment (Iacobucci, J.) supra n 7, 502.

  35. Law Judgment (Iacobucci, J.), supra n 7, 531.

  36. Law Judgment (Iacobucci, J.), supra n 7, 501–502.

  37. Justice Iacobucci's consideration of what he terms essential human dignity enters the analysis of contextual factors that takes place under the third step of the test (pp. 499–500). The directive under the section discussing contextual factors outlines four different ways that a claimant can demonstrate that the legislation has demeaned their dignity: (a) Pre-existing disadvantage, prejudice, stereotyping or vulnerability; (b) the correspondence or lack of correspondence between the grounds and the actual circumstances, needs, capacities of the claimant; (c) the ameliorative purpose or effects of the law on more disadvantaged people; (d) the nature and scope of the interest affected (pp. 501–502). See: Law v Canada [1999] 1 SCR 497, (Iacobucci, J.).

  38. Law Judgment (Iacobucci, J.), supra n 7, 530.

  39. Law Judgment (Iacobucci, J.), supra n 7, 530.

  40. Egan Judgment (L'Heureux-Dubé, J.), supra n 24, 550.

  41. Corbiere v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs), [1999] 2 SCR 203, 5.

  42. Andrews Judgment (McIntyre, J.), supra n 1, 175.

  43. Corbiere Judgment supra n 41, par 61.

  44. Gosselin Judgment supra n 9, 433.

  45. Kapp Judgment (McLachlin, C.J. and Abella, J.) supra n 8, par 21.

  46. Withler v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] 1 S.C.R. 396, par 40.

  47. Quebec v. A Judgment supra n 11, 65–66 and par 220.

  48. Quebec v. A Judgment supra n 11, par 413.

  49. Quebec v. A Judgment supra n 11, 61.

  50. Quebec v. A Judgment, (LeBel, J.) supra n 11, par 140.

  51. Quebec v. A Judgment, (LeBel, J.) supra n 11, par 214.

  52. Quebec v. A Judgment, (LeBel, J.) supra n 11, par 214 and 216.

  53. Quebec v. A Judgment, (LeBel, J.) supra n 11, par 139.

  54. Quebec v. A Judgment, (LeBel, J.) supra n 11, par 140.

  55. Quebec v. A Judgment, (LeBel, J.) supra n 11, par 260.

  56. Quebec v. A Judgment, (Deschamps, J.) supra n 11, par 388.

  57. Quebec v. A Judgment, (McLachlin, C.J.) supra n 11, par 444.

  58. Quebec v. A Judgment, (LeBel, J.) supra n 11, par 198.

  59. Quebec (AG) v. Alliance du Personnel Professionnel et Techniques de la Santé et des Services Sociaux, [2018] 1 S.C.R. 464, 466.

  60. Alliance du Personnel Professionnel et Techniques de la Santé et des Services Sociaux Judgment (Coté J.) supra n 59, par 107–111.

  61. Alliance du Personnel Professionnel et Techniques de la Santé et des Services Sociaux Judgment (Coté J.) supra n 59, par 65–68 and 112.

  62. Central des Syndicats du Québec Judgment supra n 12, 522, 523.

  63. In Kahkewistaha First Nation v. Taypotat [2015] SCC 30, without invoking dignity, Justice Abella writing for the Court ruled that Louis Taypotat had insufficient evidence to prove that the educational requirement in the Election Code had any disparate impact on Elders living on reserve.

  64. Newfoundland Treasury Board v. N.A.P.E [2004] 3 S.C.R. 381. This case was about severe measures introduced by the government of Newfoundland and Labrador in response to a financial crisis that was unprecedented in the province's history. The measures adopted to manage the province's deficit froze wage scales for public sector employees, closures of hospital beds, put freezes on student grants, resulted in the laying-off of almost two thousand workers and terminated medicare coverage for some items. Grievances were filed on behalf of some of the women who were affected by cuts to pay equity but the Court upheld the legislative provisions as constitutional.

  65. Alliance du Personnel Professionnel et Techniques de la Santé et des Services Sociaux Judgment (Coté J.) supra n 59, par 105.

  66. Central des Syndicats du Québec Judgment (Coté J.) supra n 12, par. 137.

  67. See footnote 66.

  68. Central des Syndicats du Québec (McLachlin, C. J.) supra n 12, par 156.

  69. Central des Syndicats du Québec (McLachlin, C. J.) supra n 12, par 155.

References

  • Ahmed, Sarah. 2014. Willful Subjects. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, Derrick. 2008. Race, Racism and American Law. New York: Aspen Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bredt, Christopher, and Adam Dodek. 2003. Breaking Law’s Grip on Equality: A New Paradigm for s. 15. The Supreme Court Law Review 20: 33–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, Judith. 1997. The Psychic Life of Power: Theories in Subjection. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coulthard, Glen Sean. 2014. Red Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 2016. Keynote: On Intersectionality. WOW: Women of the World Festival. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DW4HLgYPlA. Accessed 19 January 2020.

  • Delgado, Richard. 2014. Law’s Violence: Derrick Bell’s Next Article. University of Pittsburg Law Review 75: 435–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derrida, Jacques. 1978. Writing and Difference. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derrida, Jacques. 1992. Force of Law The “Mystical Foundations of Authority.”. In Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice, ed. Drucilla Cornell, Michel Rosenfeld, and David Gray Carlson, 3–67. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derrida, Jacques. 1995. Archive Fever: A Freudian Impression. Diacritics 25(2): 9–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derrida, Jacques. 1997. Of Grammatology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisen, Jessica. 2013. On Shaky Grounds: Analogous Grounds under the Charter. Canadian Journal of Poverty Law 2(2): 1–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisen, Jessica. 2016–2017. Grounding Equality in Social Relations: Suspect Classifications, Analogous Grounds and Relational Theory. Queen’s Law Journal 42: 41–81.

  • Foucault, Michel. 1972. The Archeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language. New York: Pantheon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fyfe, James R. 2007. Dignity as Theory: Competing Conceptions of Dignity at the Supreme Court of Canada. Saskatchewan Law Review 70: 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, Daphne. 2003. Time to Regroup: Rethinking s. 15 of the Charter. McGill Law Journal 48: 627–649.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greschner, Donna. 2001. Does Law Advance the Cause of Equality. Queen’s Law Journal 27: 299–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodes, Caroline. 2007. Dignity and the Conditions of Truth: What Equality Needs from Law. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 19(2): 273–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodes, Caroline. 2017a. Colonial Legacies and Competing Masculinities: The Supreme Court of Canada’s Return to Reason in R. v. Kapp. Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 34(2): 129–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodes, Caroline. 2017b. Intersectionality in the Canadian Courts: In Search of a Decolonial Politics of Possibility. Atlantis: Critical Studies in Gender, Culture & Social Justice 38(1): 71–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodes, Caroline. 2018. Gender, Race and Justification: The Value of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) in Contemporary Colonial Contexts. Journal of International Women’s Studies 19(3): 71–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodes, Caroline. 2019. The Case, the Registry and the Archive: Reflections on Truth, Reconciliation and Retrieval. Settler Colonial Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/2201473X.2019.1677135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iyer, Nitya. 1993. Categorical Denials: Equality Rights and the Shaping of Social Identity. Queen’s Law Journal 19: 179–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, Sonia. 2006. Choice, Equality and Tales of Racial Discrimination: Reading the Supreme Court on Section 15. Supreme Court Law Review 33: 115–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, Sonia. 2013. Eric and Lola Roundtable (Actually let’s call it Québec v. A): Margot Young on Consent, Sexism, Ignorance and Gender. The Institute for Feminist Legal Studies at Osgoode. https://ifls.osgoode.yorku.ca/eric-lola-roundtable-actually-lets-call-it-quebec-v-a-margot-young-on-consent-sexism-ignorance-and-gender/. Accessed 19 January 2020.

  • Mawani, Renisa. 2012. Law’s Archive. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 8: 337–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCrudden, Christopher. 2008. Human Dignity and Judicial Interpretation of Rights. The European Journal of International Law 19(4): 655–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKay-Panos, Linda. 2013. Equity Case Seems to Have Fractured the Supreme Court of Canada. Law Now: Relating Law to Life in Canada. https://www.lawnow.org/equality-case-fractured-supreme-court/. Accessed 19 January 2020.

  • Murray, Stuart J. 2011. Ethics at the Scene of Address: A Conversation with Judith Butler. Symposium 11(2): 415–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • N.A. 2014. Supreme Court of Canada will hear appeal of Eric vs Lola ‘palimony’ decision, Montreal Gazette, 9 October.

  • Naffine, Ngaire. 1990. Law and the Sexes: Explorations in Feminist Jurisprudence. Sydney: Allen & Unwin Australia Pty Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patriquin, Martin. 2009. A billionaire, the law, his Brazilian ex: the stormy breakup that may redefine marriage in Canada. Maclean’s, 19 February.

  • Réaume, Denise. 2003. Discrimination and Dignity. Louisiana Law Review 63: 1–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, Judy, and Julie Chi-hye Suk. 2003. Adding Insult to Injury: Questioning the Role of Dignity in Conceptions of Sovereignty. Stanford Law Review 55: 1921–1962.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seymour, Bruce. 1996. Lola Montez: A Life. London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, Leanne Betasamosake. 2017. As We Have Always Done: Indigenous freedom Through Radical Resistance. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Smart, Carol. 1989. Feminism and the Power of Law. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, Margaret. 1986. Feminist Jurisprudence: Illusion of Reality? Australian Journal of Law and Society 3: 5–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, Richard. 2018. Access to Justice: A Societal Imperative. 7th Annual Pro-Bono Conference, Vancouver BC. https://www.scc-csc.ca/judges-juges/spe-dis/rw-2018-10-04-eng.aspx. Accessed 19 January 2020.

  • Williams, Patricia. 1991. The Alchemy of Race and Rights. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wollop, Douglas. 1954. Damn Yankees, 1982. New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Women and Gender Studies, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, AB, Canada

    Caroline Hodes

Authors
  1. Caroline Hodes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Caroline Hodes.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hodes, C. The Limits of Dignity at the Intersection of Autonomy, Identity and Affect: A Cautionary Tale from the Supreme Court of Canada. Fem Leg Stud 28, 61–86 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-020-09425-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-020-09425-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation