Trociuk v. British Columbia (Attorney General)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trociuk v. British Columbia (Attorney General)

Hearing: December 4, 2002
Judgment: June 6, 2003


Full case name:	Darrell Wayne Trociuk v. Attorney General of British Columbia, Director of Vital Statistics and Reni Ernst
Citations:	[2003] 1 S.C.R. 835, 2003 SCC 34
Ruling:	Appeal allowed. Sections 3(1)(b) and 3(6)(b) Vital Statistics Act are struck out. The declaration of invalidity suspended for 12 months.

Court membership

Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin
Puisne Justices: Charles Gonthier, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie, Louise Arbour, Louis LeBel, Marie Deschamps

Reasons given

Unanimous reason by: Deschamps J.

Laws applied

Law v. Canada, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497

Trociuk v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 835 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms where a father successfully challenged a provision in the British Columbia Vital Statistics Act, which gave a mother complete control over the identity of the father on a child's birth certificate, on the basis that it violated his equality rights.

1 Background
2 Opinion of the court
3 See also
4 External links

[edit] Background

Darrell Trociuk and Reni Ernst were an estranged unmarried couple who became parents to triplets in January of 1996. When filling out the birth registration Ernst had indicated that the father was "unacknowledged by the mother" and that they were not together at the time. Consequently, she put "Ernst" as their surnames. Trociuk, however, claimed that they had agreed on registering the children's surnames as "Ernst-Trociuk", and tried to get the records changed to include his particulars.

Section 3(6)(b) of the Vital Statistics Act of British Columbia prevented fathers from amending registrations. So Trociuk applied for a declaration to have the provision struck out as unconstitutional for violating his section 15 right to equality.

At trial, the application was dismissed, which was subsequently upheld by the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

[edit] Opinion of the court

Justice Deschamps, writing for a unanimous Court, allowed the appeal in favour of Trociuk. It was found that section 3 of the Act violated section 15(1) of the Charter by allowing differential treatment based on sex. The provision had the effect of excluding the father's particulars from birth registration, excluding him from choosing his child's surname, and precluding any recourse. These effects were found to be arbitrary and created significant impact on the perception of the father's dignity, and consequently violated section 15(1).

On the section 1 analysis, Deschamp found that the violation could not be saved as the law did not impair Trociuk's rights as little as reasonably possible.