I Commend The Supreme Court But Am Confused

The following comment was made; ""They said the federal government had every right to make the laws it did between 1985 and 1998 and they said it was not the job of the court... to pay people back for past wrongs," Smith reports." but if that is a true interpretation of the job of the SSC then why do they get so involved in land claims?

Top court limits retroactive survivor benefits
Updated Thu. Mar. 1 2007 10:27 AM ET
CTV.ca News Staff

A long-running legal battle over same-sex survivor benefits has come to an end, with the Supreme Court of Canada limiting retroactive Canada Pension Plan survivor benefits to gay couples to 12 months.

The ruling means that the survivors of same-sex partners have not won the right to millions of dollars in retroactive payments dating back to 1985, when the Charter of Rights' equality provisions for same-sex couples took effect.

The court ruled 7-0 that the federal government breached equality rights when it granted benefits only to survivors whose mates died after Jan. 1, 1998. However, it said the government had made a "good faith'' attempt to update its laws in 2000.

"The court argued that the law changed in a major way in 2000, when the courts ruled that same-sex couples should get equal benefits," CTV's Roger Smith reported from the lobby of the Supreme Court.

"So it was wrong to try to go back and correct policy that was based on the law of the time."

The ruling saves the federal government from having to pay out as much as $100-million in retroactive payments to the 1,500 same-sex couples and estates affected.

Legendary gay rights activist George Hislop started the case but died in October 2005 at the age of 78. He argued that when his partner of 28 years, Ron Shearer, died in 1986, he had paid into the national pension plan for decades. Hislop said he should have therefore been entitled to survivor benefits.

The federal government passed legislation in 2000 granting same-sex survivor benefit to same-sex couples, but only to those whose mates had died after Jan. 1, 1998.

The plaintiffs argued the cut-off should extend back to April 17, 1985, when the Charter took effect. Most major gay rights rulings have been based on those provisions.

Lawyers for the federal government argued that offering payments back any further than 1998 would have opened the floodgates for a host of similar claims. The government also contended that Parliament has clear power to say when its laws take effect.

The Supreme Court agreed.

"They said the federal government had every right to make the laws it did between 1985 and 1998 and they said it was not the job of the court... to pay people back for past wrongs," Smith reports.

"Its real job is to make sure there isn't discrimination going forward."