numerus clausus

S.1 vs S.15 Charter rights are explored in this. the 'numerus clausus' is the same group targetted by the clawback policy.

This appeal concerns the validity of the Child Paternity and Support Act R.S.B.C. 1979; c.49 and, inparticular, whether the provisions of the statute are inconsistent with s.15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In my opinion, the impugned Act provides affirmative action for the benefit of women and children who suffer from economic and social disadvantages in cases where the children are born out of wedlock by single mothers and paternity is an issue.

the euphemism of numerus clausus, i.e. the creation of quotas for the purpose of discriminating against minorities. For that reason it is my opinion that affirmative action laws or programs must be carefully scrutinized to ascertain (a) whether the law or program is in fact an ameliorative one for disadvantaged individuals or groups including those set out in s.15(2), and (b) if ameliorative, whether the effect of the law or program is so unreasonable that it is grossly unfair to other individuals or groups.

In the circumstances here it is my opinion that both criteria are met. Firstly, the objective of the Act is to provide affirmative action to ameliorate the conditions of disadvantaged children born out of wedlock to mothers in cases where paternity is an issue. Secondly, no question of disproportional consequences results in relation to sex equality. My answer, then, to question (3) is yes.

4. Finally, if I am wrong in my answer to questions (2) and (3), then I agree with my brother Macfarlane for substantially the reasons he has given, namely, that the provision of the Act is demonstrably justified as a reasonable limit under s.(1) of the Charter.

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/1986/1986canlii174/1986canlii174.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAjImh1bWFuIHJpZ2h0cyIgK2lsbGVnaXRpbWF0ZSArY2hpbGQAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=4