Abstract
This paper explores how the dissenting opinion in R. v. Sharma opens the door for Indigenizing the analysis under section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It considers how the dissenting opinion creates a pathway for strengthening Indigenous women’s rights under section 15(1) by expanding the range of impacts considered when assessing disadvantage in the equality analysis. It argues that in a case alleging a violation of Indigenous people’s section 15(1) rights, the courts can consider the impugned law’s impacts on Indigenous laws, including Indigenous people’s roles under those laws. Any interference with these roles should be recognized as a harm that reinforces, perpetuates and exacerbates the disadvantage of Indigenous peoples at the second stage of the section 15(1) Charter analysis. This paper (1) reviews the importance of recognizing Indigenous laws relating to Indigenous women when adjudicating Charter rights; (2) considers how the dissenting opinion facilitates recognition of Indigenous laws in the equality analysis; and (3) explores how the “constitutional imperative of reconciliation” can form a paramount consideration in future determinations of equality rights. The explicit recognition of the importance of reconciliation and the implicit acknowledgement of Indigenous laws by the dissenting judges form part of a developing trend of judicial engagement with these principles, and signals a potentially transformative development in equality rights jurisprudence. The distinct constitutional status of Indigenous peoples in Canada can be reflected through the meaningful consideration of Indigenous laws in the adjudication of section 15(1) Charter rights. In the case of Sharma where Indigenous women faced incarceration, Indigenous laws on the roles and responsibilities held by Indigenous women tell a different part of the story on how Canadian laws reinforce, perpetuate or exacerbate disadvantage – not only to the woman confronting removal from her family and community, but also to those around her. Engaging with these broader considerations allow for a more holistic analysis under section 15(1) of the Charter.
Citation Information
Robert, Alana.
"How the Dissent in Sharma Opens the Door to Indigenize the Section 15(1) Charter Analysis."
The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference
115.
(2024).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1450
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol115/iss1/8
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.