The Persons Case

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General) , [1930] A.C. 124 - also known as the “Persons Case” - is a decision of the The Persons Case Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on October 18, Every October 18 Canadians 1929 that declared that women were “persons” in law and therefore eligible to sit in the Canadian Senate. The celebrate “Persons Day” in case was spearheaded by a group of women known as honour of this important legal the Famous Five: Emily Murphy, Nellie McClung, Irene victory. Parlby, Henrietta Muir Edwards and Louise McKinney. It began as a reference case in the Supreme Court of Canada, which had ruled that women were not "qualified persons" and thus ineligible to sit in the Senate. Famous Five Study Area: This area in the Library honours the Famous Five and the Persons Case. Irene Parlby was one of the “Famous Five” who brought the Persons Case. She was an advocate for rural women and children and the first female Cabinet minister in Alberta. She died in 1965 at the age of 97. Rosemary Brown (1930-2003) was the first Black woman to be elected to a provincial legislature in Canada when she became a BC MLA in 1972. She was a professor of women’s studies and served as the Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The Centre for Feminist Legal Studies is a research centre that works to advance the study of feminism and the law through the scholarship of its affiliated faculty, the work of visiting speakers and researchers, and the expertise of the front-line women’s movement. Our gathering space is the Marlee Kline Scholars’ Commons (Room 424), named in honour of our late colleague Marlee Kline, a pioneer in intersectional feminist theory. Lynn Smith became the UBC Faculty of Law’s first woman Dean in 1991. A noted litigator for sex equality rights, she went on to serve as a Justice of the B.C. Supreme Court until her retirement in 2012. She then returned to teaching Charter litigation here at UBC Law. Five Famous Feminist Spots at UBC Law .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Robert J. Sharpe and Patricia I. Mcmahon, the Persons Case: the Origins and Legacy of the Fight for Legal Personhood (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007)
Robert J. Sharpe and Patricia I. McMahon, The Persons Case: The Origins and Legacy of the Fight for Legal Personhood (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007). Pp. xi, 269. In their book, The Persons Case: The Origins and Legacy of the Fight for Legal Personhood,1 Robert J. Sharpe and Patricia I. McMahon provide a rich and detailed account of the individuals, social forces and ideologies behind one of Canada’s most important constitutional decisions, Edwards v. Canada.2 Their book tells us the remarkable story of how Emily Murphy, the leading protagonist, along with Nellie McClung, Henrietta Edwards, Louise McKinney and Irene Parlby—five prominent 2008 CanLIIDocs 167 Canadian women’s rights advocates from Western Canada, referred to as the Famous Five—advocated for the advancement of the rights of women throughout World War I and during the 1920s. Their engagement with women’s rights included the struggle for women’s suffrage, married women’s property rights, female factory workers’ rights, temperance, and children’s rights. These struggles culminated in the historic effort to seek affirmation of women’s entitlement to hold public office, specifically as members of the Senate of Canada. Against significant odds, they succeeded in convincing the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the highest appellate court on constitutional questions at the time, to declare that women were “qualified persons” for the purposes of appointment to the Senate. Affirming a purposive “living tree” approach to constitutional interpretation, Lord Sankey concluded that women are eligible for Senate appointments, despite the fact that the drafters of the British North America Act, 1867, now the Constitution Act, 1867,3 did not believe that women should be eligible for public office.4 To unravel the legacy of the Persons Case, the book begins by examining the life of Emily Murphy, who played the primary role in advancing the struggle for the inclusion of women in the Senate both politically and in the courts.
[Show full text]
University Women's Club of Vancouver Four Famous Members Who
UNIVERSITY WOMEN’S CLUB OF VANCOUVER FOUR FAMOUS MEMBERS WHO INFLUENCED VANCOUVER AND CANADA Adapted with thanks from “Women Lead the Way: A History of The University Women's Club of Vancouver, 1907 -2007” By Jean Mann, Beverley New and Cathy Barford, Wikepedia & websites of the Government of Canada On October 18th each year the University Women’s Club of Vancouver celebrates Person’s Day, to commemorate the day in 1929 when women in Canada were declared eligible to sit in the Canadian Senate as a result of the case Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General), more commonly known as The Persons Case. The Persons Case honors the five Alberta women, known as The Famous Five, that later lead to the victory of Canadian women’s equality which gives women the right to be appointed to the Senate of Canada and paved the way for women’s increased participation in public and political life. Those five women were Emily Murphy, Nellie McClung, Irene Parlby, Louise McKinney and Henrietta Muir Edward. In 1927 these five women went to the Supreme Court of Canada to get an answer as to why women were not included in the word person according to the British North American Act. The debate took over five weeks and the court ruled that women would not be included in the word person. Two years later, after the women took the case to London, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of Great Britain, Canada’s highest court of appeal, the question was answered “why should it not?”, a decision which not only helped women have a place in the senate but also gave women more rights and equality.
[Show full text]
Women Demand Change a Mock Parliament
264-285 120820 11/1/04 3:47 PM Page 264 Chapter 17 Women Demand Change A Mock Parliament It is 27 January 1914. Nellie McClung and sev- men are given the vote,” she says, “they will eral hundred women meet with the premier of vote too much. Politics unsettles men. Manitoba. They have a petition demanding Unsettled men mean unsettled bills—broken the Manitoba government grant women the furniture, broken vows, and divorce. Men right to vote. Nellie confronts the premier: cannot be trusted with the ballot. Men’s place “We are not here to ask for a gift or a favour, is on the farm.” but for a right—not for mercy, but for justice!” The play is a roaring success. The audi- Premier Roblin receives the women res- ence howls with laughter and the premier and pectfully but dismisses their arguments: “Now his government are embarrassed. Requests to you forget all this nonsense about women vot- repeat the performance come from all over ing. Nice women don’t want to vote!” Manitoba. Money earned is used to finance the The next night, at the Walker Theatre in women’s campaign to win the right to vote. Winnipeg, women stage a mock parliament. All mem- Reflecting bers are women. Nellie 1. Why do you think women at the turn of the 20th McClung is premier. Roles century did not have the right to vote? are reversed and men are 2. Why was a stage play an effective way for women to asking for the right to vote. make their point? Nellie cleverly pokes fun at 3.
[Show full text]
September 29, 2020 to Sheri Regnier, Trail Daily Times Press Release (1
September 29, 2020 To Sheri Regnier, Trail Daily Times Press Release (1 page + 2 pages Background) October is Women’s History Month On October 1 several October is Women’s History Month displays will be set up in downtown Trail to encourage residents to learn about and celebrate the many contributions women have made to Canadian society over hundreds of years. A display in Mills Stationery store’s window on Bay Avenue is being created by members of the Lower Columbia Violence Against Women in Relationships (VAWIR) Interagency Committee with support from the Trail FAIR Centre Society. Through pictures and text, it will highlight the achievements of individual women from many backgrounds and cultures from the late 1600’s to the present day. As well, the significance of October 11, the International Day of the Girl and October 18, Persons Day will be featured. In addition, there are two interesting displays planned for Trail’s Riverfront Centre. Trail Museum and Archives staff will create a window display of artifacts and tools that embody the evolution of women’s contributions to the local community from the distant past to present day. Inside the Centre, the Trail & District Library will set up an exciting display of books by and about women in Canada. The movement to establish a Women's History Month in Canada was led by women from Victoria, BC. Finally established in 1992, the goal of the month-long celebration was to encourage greater appreciation of the contributions of women to Canadian history. October was selected because it was on October 18th, 1929 that Canadian women were first declared to be legally considered as 'persons', and therefore eligible to join the Senate of Canada.
[Show full text]
Women's Constitutional Activism in Canada and South Africa Marilou
EMBARGOED. For PFOTA participants only. Forthcoming chapter in COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONALISM AND RIGHTS: GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES. Editors Penelope E. Andrews, City University of New York School of Law and Susan Bazilli, International Women’s Rights Project, University of Victoria, British Columbia. Cambridge University Press, Forthcoming February 2007. Not for distribution. Women’s Constitutional Activism in Canada and South Africa Marilou McPhedran We now have a Charter which defines the kind of country in which we wish to live, and guarantees the basic rights and freedoms which each of us shall enjoy as a citizen of Canada. It reinforces the protection offered to French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec, and to English-speaking Canadians in Quebec. It recognizes our multicultural character. It upholds the equality of women, and the rights of disabled persons. Pierre Elliott Trudeau (1982) 1 ………………………………………………… Freedom cannot be achieved unless women have been emancipated from all forms of oppression. All of us must take this on board, that the objectives of the Reconstruction and Development Programme will not have been realized unless we see in visible and practical terms that the condition of the women of our country has radically changed for the better, and that they have been empowered to intervene in all aspects of life as equals with any other member of society. Nelson Mandela (1994) 2 Marilou McPhedran, C.M., B.A., LL.B., LL.M. (LL.D. HONORIS CAUSA), holds the 2007 Ariel F. Sallows Chair in Human Rights, College of Law, University of Saskatchewan, Canada; founded and now co-directs the International Women's Rights Project (IWRP), Centre for Global Studies, University of Victoria, Canada.
[Show full text]
THE PRIVY COUNCIL AS the FINAL COURT for the BRITISH EMPIRE Rt Hon Sir Ivor Richardson*
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Open Journal Systems at the Victoria University of Wellington Library 103 THE PRIVY COUNCIL AS THE FINAL COURT FOR THE BRITISH EMPIRE Rt Hon Sir Ivor Richardson* After introductory comments on how the Judicial Committee functioned as the final court for the British Empire for over a century, this article discusses a range of highly unusual cases from India, Canada and New Zealand. The aim is to give something of the flavour of the Judicial Committee's work and its impact on local courts. The final section of the paper suggests conclusions that can be drawn from that survey. I INTRODUCTION The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Act 1833 provided the framework for the hearing of appeals against decisions of final courts in the far-flung reaches of the Empire. And, as we shall see, the functioning of the Privy Council evolved along with changes in the governance arrangements for the colonies and territories. In 1839, the Earl of Durham, whose principal adviser was Edward Gibbon Wakefield, presented his landmark report on the specific problems of Canadian governance together with proposals for resolving them, which Piers Brendon notes, "were so universal in their application that the Durham Report became a handbook of white colonial development under the Union Jack."1 To the same effect, Professor Niall Ferguson concludes that the Durham Report has a good claim to be the book that saved the Empire, adding that:2 By the 1860s the balance of political power in all the white colonies had been decisively shifted ..
[Show full text]
'Atlantic Seat' on the Supreme Court of Canada: an Endangered Species?
Osgoode Hall Law School of York University Osgoode Digital Commons Research Papers, Working Papers, Conference All Papers Papers 2017 The Atl‘ antic Seat’ on the Supreme Court of Canada: An Endangered Species? Philip Girard Osgoode Hall Law School of York University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/all_papers Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation Girard, Philip, "The A‘ tlantic Seat’ on the Supreme Court of Canada: An Endangered Species?" (2017). All Papers. 277. https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/all_papers/277 This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Research Papers, Working Papers, Conference Papers at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Papers by an authorized administrator of Osgoode Digital Commons. “The ‘Atlantic Seat’ on the Supreme Court of Canada: An Endangered Species?” Philip Girard* I. Introduction The sigh of relief on the Atlantic coast could be heard all the way to Ottawa on October 17, 2016. On that day, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced the nomination of Justice Malcolm Rowe of the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada seat vacated by Justice Thomas Cromwell. Justice Cromwell’s replacement was to be the first appointed pursuant to a new process put in place by the Trudeau government. When that process was unveiled on August 2, 2016, Trudeau announced that the position would be open to any qualified Canadian lawyer or judge who was functionally bilingual and “representative of the diversity of our great country.” A further clarification stated that “[a]pplications are being accepted from across Canada in order to allow for a selection process that ensures outstanding individuals are considered for appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada,” confirming that Atlantic Canadians did not have a lock on the position.1 People on the east coast generally take most things in stride, but this proposed change created a considerable outcry.
[Show full text]
University Women's Club of Vancouver Four Famous
UNIVERSITY WOMEN’S CLUB OF VANCOUVER FOUR FAMOUS MEMBERS WHO INFLUENCED VANCOUVER AND CANADA Adapted with thanks from “Women Lead the Way: A History of The University Women's Club of Vancouver, 1907 -2007” By Jean Mann, Beverley New and Cathy Barford, Wikepedia & websites of the Government of Canada On October 18th each year the University Women’s Club of Vancouver celebrates Person’s Day, to commemorate the day in 1929 when women in Canada were declared eligible to sit in the Canadian Senate as a result of the case Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General), more commonly known as The Persons Case. The Persons Case honors the five Alberta women, known as The Famous Five, that later lead to the victory of Canadian women’s equality which gives women the right to be appointed to the Senate of Canada and paved the way for women’s increased participation in public and political life. Those five women were Emily Murphy, Nellie McClung, Irene Parlby, Louise McKinney and Henrietta Muir Edward. In 1927 these five women went to the Supreme Court of Canada to get an answer as to why women were not included in the word person according to the British North American Act. The debate took over five weeks and the court ruled that women would not be included in the word person. Two years later, after the women took the case to London, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of Great Britain, Canada’s highest court of appeal, the question was answered “why should it not?”, a decision which not only helped women have a place in the senate but also gave women more rights and equality.
[Show full text]
Law 435 Can Constitutional
LAW 435 CAN CONSTITUTIONAL INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1 THE ELEMENTS OF THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION ................................................................ 1 THE SOURCES OF THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION ................................................................... 1 REFERENCE CASES ............................................................................................................................. 1 CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES .............................................................................................................. 1 Reference re Secession of Quebec ......................................................................................................... 1 Reference re Senate Reform .................................................................................................................. 2 CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION ................................................................................................... 2 UNWRITTEN CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES .............................................................................. 2 Reference re Meaning of the Word “Persons” in Section 24 of the British North America Act, 1867 . 2 Edwards v Canada (Attorney General) – Living Tree .......................................................................... 3 Constitutional Interpretation and Original Intent – Justice Ian Binnie ...........................................
[Show full text]
Creating Trialogue Women's Constitutional Activism in Canada
Creating Trialogue Women’s Constitutional Activism in Canada MARILOU MCPHEDRAN Les droits constitutionnels à l’égalité des droits ont évolué depuis democracy.4 Before returning to Canada to enter politics, une dizaine d’années grâce aux féministes qui militaient dans Michael Ignatieff observed how Canadian constitutional leur quotidien. Toutefois, ce militantisme constitutionnel des development accommodated diversity, femmes a souvent été traité comme marginal durant ces périodes formatrices de la démocratie. L’auteure décrit l’ardeur déployée The rights revolution makes society harder to control, par ces femmes pour amender les clauses sur l’égalité des droits more unruly, more contentious. This is because rights dans la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés. equality makes society more inclusive, and rights protection constrains government power.… What We now have a Charter that defines the kind of makes the Canadian political story so interesting is country in which we wish to live, and guarantees the way in which women’s organizations, Aboriginal the basic rights and freedoms which each of us groups, and ordinary citizens have forced their way shall enjoy as a citizen of Canada. It reinforces the to the table and enlarged both the process of consti- protection offered to French-speaking Canadians tutional change and its results.5 outside Quebec, and to English-speaking Cana- dians in Quebec. It recognizes our multicultural Women’s Activism and Constitutionalism character. It upholds the equality of women, and the rights of disabled
[Show full text]
The Original Living Tree
e Original Living Tree Asher Honickman* One of the main arguments in Canada in favour tion should not be interpreted in a “narrow and of the “living tree” doctrine is that it has deep technical” manner, but should rather be given roots in our constitutional tradition. As the a “large and liberal interpretation.” 6 ! e Privy Supreme Court of Canada said in Reference Re Council acknowledged the well-established rule Same-Sex Marriage, the living tree is “one of the that the then British North America Act, 1867 7 most fundamental principles of Canadian con- (now the Constitution Act, 1867 )8 should be stitutional interpretation.” 1 ! e argument goes interpreted “by the same methods of construc- something like this: beginning with the famous tion” 9 as other statutes. ! is would have neces- “Persons case” of 1929 ( Edwards v. Canada sarily included the original or # xed meaning as (Attorney General) ), 2 the Judicial Committee of canon, which holds that “the words of a statute the Privy Council recognized the Constitution to must be construed as they would have been the be a living tree, capable of evolving to meet new day a$ er the statute passed.” 10 ! e Privy Coun- social and economic realities, and this method of cil, however, distinguished between penal and constitutional interpretation has remained fun- taxing statutes — that ought to be interpreted damental to Canada’s constitutional order ever strictly — and other statutes passed to ensure the since. 3 peace, order, and good government of a British colony. 11 In recent years, several commentators, most notably Justice Bradley Miller (then a Professor at Two years a$ er Edwards was decided, the the University of Western Ontario), have refuted Supreme Court married the “living tree” passage this version of Canadian history.
[Show full text]
Reconciling Cabinet Secrecy with the Rule of Law
RECONCILING CABINET SECRECY WITH THE RULE OF LAW By Yan Campagnolo A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Juridical Science Faculty of Law University of Toronto © Copyright by Yan Campagnolo, 2018 P a g e | ii Reconciling Cabinet Secrecy with the Rule of Law Doctor of Juridical Science, 2018 Yan Campagnolo Faculty of Law University of Toronto ABSTRACT This dissertation explores the tension between government openness and secrecy. It focuses on Cabinet secrecy, that is, the doctrine protecting the confidentiality of the collective decision-making process at the top of the executive branch in Westminster jurisdictions. I argue that Cabinet secrecy is crucial to the proper functioning of the system of responsible government as it fosters the candour of ministerial discussions, protects the efficiency of the decision-making process, and enables Ministers to remain united in public notwithstanding any disagreement they may have in private. Yet, excessive secrecy can hamper government accountability by depriving citizens, parliamentarians and judges of the information needed to hold public officials responsible for their decisions and actions. An important question is who should have the final authority over the disclosure of Cabinet secrets when a dispute arises, the Government or the Courts? Under the common law, Courts in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Canada (at the provincial level) asserted the authority to review and overrule Cabinet immunity claims to prevent abuses of power. In Canada, at the federal level, by the enactment of sections 39 of the Canada Evidence Act and 69 of the Access to Information Act , Parliament deprived the Courts of the power to inspect and order the disclosure of Cabinet secrets.
[Show full text]