Volume 35 Number 16 Edmonton, Canada April 17, 1998

http://www.ualberta.ca/~publicas/folio

Professors key in Supreme Court decision


LEE ELLIOTT
Folio Staff


The UofA dream team: (left to right): Wayne Renke's journal article was cited in the case. Dale Gibson represented the United Church. June Ross was key advisor to counsel for Delwin Vriend. Ritu Khullar worked on the United Church intervention. Ted DeCoste's article was cited. Shannon O'Byrne's article was cited, and Erin Nelson was counsel for the Canadian Jewish Congress.

It was a tumultuous week.

Edmonton Councillor Michael Phair, a gay man, and Premier Ralph Klein each told reporters about violent, harassing phone calls they'd received as fall out from the Supreme Court's decision to "read in" rights for gays and lesbians in Alberta human rights legislation.

A newly organized Christian group in support of families took out roughly $14,000 worth of advertisements in newspapers throughout the province decrying the decision and calling for the government to invoke the charter's notwithstanding clause.

Sixteen lawyers from the U of A law faculty faxed a letter to Premier Klein saying use of the clause in this case, "would amount to a profound violation of human rights." The Graduate Students Association issued a news release, on behalf of the 4,300 students they represent, in favor of Klein's decision not to use the notwithstanding clause.

The Alberta government caucus decided against invoking the clause and gays, lesbians and their supporters cheered on the steps of the legislature.

Meanwhile, back on campus, five faculty members and two sessionals breathed a sigh of relief. All seven were involved, pro bono, either as advisers, counsel for interveners, or as authors of articles cited in the groundbreaking case.

Professor June Ross was a key advisor to Sheila Greckol, counsel for Delwin Vriend. Ross, described by broadcaster Michael Enright on CBC Radio as "one smart country lawyer," -- an apparent reference to Abraham Lincoln -- became involved in the case in 1994 shortly after the initial Alberta Court of Queen's Bench decision in Vriend's favor.

What was the aftermath of the decision like for Ross?

"I don't know if I'm any different than anyone else this way. I've been dealing with this on an intellectual level and I don't deal with it, or come into contact with it, on a visceral level. And it surprised me. I was nervous because the Alberta government had talked from time to time about looking into the notwithstanding clause and there's some support for that, but then Premier Klein responded very quickly and I thought, okay everyone will understand, this is just making us like the rest of Canada. This is fine, we're going to move on from here."

"I was surprised at the degree of organization that was exhibited by the opponents of the case... I liked to think that most of the objection to the case... related to government issues, or independence of Alberta, or institutional issues and didn't involve hatred. And there's always been this fear, this concern, this awareness, that for at least some people, at some level, those other arguments are a smokescreen and the real basic thing is hatred."

"... It's horrifying to see it, but it's also educational. People then realize there's a need for this law.and that some of the statements about the nature of the court's role and about the impact of the case are not true, are lies that are motivated by malice."

Her last constitutional class that day was also winding down from term filled with the legal challenges of the case. "It became a very real and personal discussion," says Ross. There were "concerns about fear for the future and the loss of the norms we're

used to today on the one hand and also concerns about equality on the other hand... thinking about what they want to teach their children as well as the legal aspects of it."

The highs and lows?

"There were a lot of low moments after getting the Alberta Court of Appeal decision, but we knew it wasn't the end of the day. But earlier this week when it just started to seem like this campaign to use the notwithstanding clause might actually be effective and the numbers seemed to be piling up, then I felt really helpless. I felt like rational argument just wasn't going to work and this was just a force I didn't know how to deal with."

"There're two really high points. One was getting the Supreme Court decision and the other just incredibly high point was hearing Premier Klein say, 'It is morally wrong to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.' There were years when it was brought to the Alberta government again, and again and again to include sexual orientation and the response was always, 'Not now, we don't think so,'... to go from that to 'It's morally wrong to discriminate,' was to me just a huge advance."


[Folio]
Folio front page
[Office of Public Affairs]
Office of Public Affairs
[University of Alberta]
University of Alberta