Unanimous reasons by Deschamps J. | ||
 | ||
Full case name Darrell Wayne Trociuk v Attorney General of British Columbia, Director of Vital Statistics and Reni Ernst Citations [2003] 1 S.C.R. 835, 2003 SCC 34 Ruling Appeal allowed. Sections 3(1)(b) and 3(6)(b) Vital Statistics Act are struck out. The declaration of invalidity suspended for 12 months. | ||
Trociuk v British Columbia (AG), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 835 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms where a father successfully challenged a provision in the British Columbia Vital Statistics Act, which gave a mother complete control over the identity of the father on a child's birth certificate, on the basis that it violated his equality rights.
Contents
Background
Darrell Trociuk and Reni Ernst were an estranged unmarried couple who became parents to triplets in January 1996. When filling out the birth registration Ernst had indicated that the father was "unacknowledged by the mother" and that they were not together at the time. Consequently, she put "Ernst" as their surnames. Trociuk, however, claimed that they had agreed on registering the children's surnames as "Ernst-Trociuk", and tried to get the records changed to include his particulars.
Section 3(1)(b) and 4(1)(a) of the Vital Statistics Act of British Columbia prevented fathers from amending registrations. So Trociuk applied for a declaration to have the provision struck out as unconstitutional for violating his section 15 right to equality.
The Director of Vital Statistics denied the changing of the children's surnames to include their biological father's name. Trociuk then took his case to the British Columbia Supreme Court, where it was upheld.
Opinion of the court
Justice Deschamps, writing for a unanimous Court, allowed the appeal in favour of Trociuk. It was found that section 3 of the Act violated section 15(1) of the Charter by allowing differential treatment based on sex. The provision had the effect of excluding the father's particulars from birth registration, excluding him from choosing his child's surname, and precluding any recourse. These effects were found to be arbitrary and created significant impact on the perception of the father's dignity, and consequently violated section 15(1).
On the section 1 analysis, Deschamp found that the violation could not be saved as the law did not impair Trociuk's rights as little as reasonably possible.