## Facts

- Delwin Vriend worked as a laboratory coordinator at The King’s College, a private religious institution in Edmonton, Alberta, and received positive performance evaluations.
- In 1990, after an inquiry from the college president, Vriend disclosed he was homosexual.
- In 1991, following adoption of a formal institutional position on homosexuality, the president requested Vriend’s resignation; when he refused, his employment was terminated for non-compliance with that position.
- Vriend sought to file a discrimination complaint, but Alberta’s Individual’s Rights Protection Act (IRPA) did not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, and the human rights commission declined jurisdiction.
- Vriend and supporting organizations challenged the statutory omission as violating s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and sought a constitutional remedy.

## Issues

1. Whether the omission of “sexual orientation” from the IRPA is government action subject to Charter review, including review of legislative omissions.
2. Whether the omission violates s. 15(1) by denying equal benefit and protection of the law to gay and lesbian persons.
3. If so, whether the omission is justified under s. 1 of the Charter.
4. What remedy is appropriate under s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, including whether “sexual orientation” should be read into the IRPA.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and dismissed Alberta’s cross-appeal.
- The Court held the IRPA’s omission of sexual orientation is a reviewable legislative omission and violates s. 15(1).
- The Court held the violation was not justified under s. 1 because Alberta did not show a pressing and substantial objective for the exclusion and the exclusion wholly denied access to the statutory human rights scheme.
- As a remedy under s. 52, the Court ordered “sexual orientation” read into the relevant IRPA provisions (including ss. 2(1), 3, 4, 7(1), 8(1), and 10).
- A separate opinion agreed on the breach but would have preferred a declaration of invalidity with a suspension rather than reading in.

## Legal Principles

- A legislature’s decision to exclude a group from statutory human rights protection can constitute a Charter-reviewable legislative omission.
- Exclusion from a human rights complaints scheme can itself be discriminatory where it withholds equal benefit and protection of the law from a historically disadvantaged group.
- Under s. 1, a rights-limiting measure requires a pressing and substantial objective and proportional means; a total denial of protection is unlikely to satisfy minimal impairment.
- Under s. 52, courts may “read in” omitted language when doing so best remedies the constitutional defect while preserving the statute’s overall structure and purpose, and when the added term is workable and consistent with the legislative scheme.
- Constitutional remedies must balance respect for legislative roles with effective enforcement of constitutional rights, including protection of minorities.

## Conclusion

The Court held Alberta’s human rights statute unconstitutionally denied protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation and remedied the defect by reading that ground into the law so affected individuals could access the province’s human rights system on equal terms.


Vriend v. Alberta, 1 S.C.R. 493 (Can. 1998)