Charter Litigation

CUPE 2424 v. Carleton University

In one of the first cases of its kind in Canadian labour arbitration, CUPE Local 2424 brought a grievance alleging that Carleton University's failure to provide the same benefits as it provided to the spouses opposite sex couples to a gay employee in a spousal relationship discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation.

Like many other collective agreements, the collective agreement between the union and the university contained a no-discrimination clause that included sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination. However, the collective agreement also defined "spouse" as "a husband or wife in law or common law".

In a June 1988 decision, a majority of a board of arbitration dismissed the grievance, holding that the definition of spouse implied a heterosexual relationship, and was consistent with the definition of spouse in the Ontario Human Rights Code which, at that time, defined "spouse" as a person of the opposite sex.

The majority also held that it was bound by the decision of the Supreme Court of Ontario in Andrews v. Ontario (Minister of Health). In that case, the court held that the opposite-sex definition of spouse in the Health Insurance Act did not discriminate against a lesbian couple seeking dependent coverage. SGM's Howard Goldblatt and Steven Barrett had represented the applicant in the Andrews case.

CUPE 2424 brought an application for judicial review of the arbitration award, but the Divisional Court dismissed the application holding that there was no basis in law for benefits to be extended to the grievor.

CUPE 2424 and its grievor, Jim Carleton, were represented by Howard Goldblatt.

Click here to read the award