Egan v. Canada (1995)
-Does failure to include same sex couples in dn of “spouse” in Old Age Security Act violate s. 15?
-Four js (La Forest):  no violation of s. 15.  Old Age Sec Act intended to assist heterosexual couples, who tend to take on additional burdens by having children.
-Sopinka:  there's a violation of s.15 that can be justified under s. 1.
-2 Dissenting opinions (L’Heureux-Dube, & Cory +2 others):  Old Age Sec Act violates s. 15, and this cannot be justified under s. 1.
-Oakes test:  obj of Act is substantial, but Act fails all 3 parts of Part II.

Vriend (1998)

-Does failure to include sexual orientation in Alberta Individual Rights Protection Act violate s.15?
    -All 9 judges:  yes.
    -Not including sexual orientation is a distinction that denies equal protection.
Oakes test:
-Depends what objective is.  If objective is to prevent discrimination, then it's pressing & substantial.
    If obj is to deny gays equal treatment, then it's not pressing.
-Part II:  If we accept first objective above, then omission of homosexuals fails all 3  tests in Part II.
-Remedy:  read sexual orientation into act.
-Major dissents from remedy.
-L’Heureux-Dube:  would broaden definition of groups claiming discrimination:  any group not being treated with equal concern and respect can claim discrimination.

M. v. H. (1999)

-Should homosexual couples be able to use Family Law Act to claim support from a former partner?
-Majority:  yes, for reasons similar to Vriend.
-Remedy:  declaration of violation of s. 15, plus suspension of offending part of FLA for 6 months to give legislature time to revise it.
-Gonthier dissents:  adopted Egan-type approach.  There's no violation of s. 15.  Purpose of FLA is to is to assist heterosexual couples who have a division of labour in the family to support children, and then the marriage falls apart.  Most homosexual couples do not have the same division of labour, and therefore don't need the protection of the FLA.

Eldridge v. AG of BC (1997)

-Does s. 15 require governments to provide interpreters to the deaf in medical situations?
-Unanimous:  yes (La Forest wrote the decision).
-Failure to provide deaf persons with interpreters restricts equal application of the benefit of health legislation.
-The legislation itself is not unconstitutional, but the failure of the gov’t to take action to provide equal benefit is a violation of s. 15 that cannot be justified under s. 1 because rights of deaf are not minimally impaired.
-This decision is important because it shows how the Supreme Court can be activist in ordering that benefits be extended to disadvantaged groups, even if this means greater government expenditures.  (In this case, there was no evidence that the additional expenditure would result in undue hardship.)