Trociuk v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 835

2003-06-06  Supreme Court of Canada - Decisions - Trociuk v. British Columbia (Attorney General)

Trociuk v. British Columbia (Attorney General) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; 

"Trociuk v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [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."

UVic Law Professor Hester Lessard "Trociuk is .. a disheartening endorsement of biological  concepts of parenthood  ... flawed .... it legitimizes a heterosexual view of the family"

Lessard, Hester: UVic Faculty of Law UBC Centre for Feminist Legal Studies Lecture Series Lessard, Hester: BC '70 4/30 Arrestee: Identifiable Student Protesters, CU '68

Ian Mulgrew,  Vancouver Sun, 
Friday, November 14, 2003

Darrell Trociuk sat like a coiled spring as he was described by a University of Victoria law professor <Lessard> as "more than a casual fornicator" and "less than a social parent."   (Darrell Trociuk was in a common law marriage of about three years when his children were conceived.)

In June, the 38-year-old Delta dad won a seven-year-long fight at the Supreme Court of Canada to have his name included on the birth certificates for his triplet sons.

He's still waiting for the change and he's angry that his case has since become a feminist cause celebre in which he is often falsely portrayed.. On Thursday, he confronted professor Hester Lessard after she had given a thoughtful 45-minute presentation at the University of B.C. -- part of a regular lunch-time lecture series at the law school -- on why she believed the unanimous verdict of the Supreme Court in his case was wrong. She came to talk about family ideologies and the construction of parenthood in a world where science says potentially five adults can be involved in a birth -- the two social parents (the couple who rear the child), a sperm donor, an egg donor and a birth mother.

He came to complain that he was being turned into fodder by the gender war.  Some scholars and lawyers,  <Lessard> for instance, have suggested that in today's world of gay and lesbian families, the high-court ruling in Trociuk is as flawed as the original statute.

A writer and teacher of feminist theory, constitutional law and equality rights, Lessard is particularly critical of the decision.  Lessard believes Justice Marie Deschamps, writing her first ruling, erred in her analysis and in the manner in which she framed the issues.

She <Lessard> believes the decision is "a disheartening endorsement of biological  concepts of parenthood", "an increasingly fictional creation narrative."  "It legitimates a heterosexual view of the family," she said.

Trociuk won because the Supreme Court ruled B.C.'s Vital Statistics Act violated Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms by discriminating against "fathers."

A section of the act provides mothers with sole discretion to include or exclude information relating to fathers when registering the birth of a child. A father who is not named on a birth certificate has no say in the surname of his child.  (Trociuk, however, can't seek name changes for sons Ryan, Andrew and Daniel, born on Jan. 29, 1996, until the province rewrites the act and the government was given a year to fix it.)  Trociuk was not married to Reni Ernst, 44, who maintains that, as soon as the boys are old enough, she will allow them to choose their names. The triplets were putatively conceived in a last-ditch attempt to mend the tumultuous relationship. When the inevitable split came, it was bitter. It remains caustic.

Trociuk began the fight to be acknowledged as the father of the boys within six months of their birth.  He has visitation rights and pays some child support for his sons, who live in Nanaimo.  He lost the first round to be recognized in B.C. Supreme Court and lost again at the B.C. Court of Appeal.

This summer, though, Justice Deschamps disagreed with the lower courts and said Trociuk was right. It was a no-brainer in her view: Mothers and fathers should be equal.

But in 2003, as Lessard pointed out, "Who constitutes the "mother" and the "father"? ....This is the crucial mis-step," <Lessard> said. "The debate should not be framed by who is a 'mother' and who is a 'father.'"  "The high court's reasoning was flawed", Lessard said, "and the justices should have been more on top of their game."

Before they ruled, the Vital Statistics Act should be fixed, <Lessard> said, a B.C. Human Rights Tribunal <chaired by career Homosexual Activist, Mary Woo Simms> had ordered it amended to accommodate gays and lesbians. The high court should have spent time mulling the same concerns  <of the Homosexual Activist>.

In essence, what I heard her say is "the law today should be gender-neutral and as reflective of real life as we can make it. The Trociuk decision is bad law because it perpetuates as many Stereotypes <ie. that Parental Rights fall inherently to male and female NATURAL PARENTS, Mothers & Fathers> as it purports to correct."  And I think she's right.

What about a dozen aggrieved fathers in the audience heard, unfortunately, was that they were going to have to wait again while gay and lesbian parents were accommodated.  And a few of them got rude about it.  "I can't believe this crap," snapped one particular boor who dubbed the law school a "lesbian breeding ground."

Listening to the theoretical ramifications of his case, Trociuk didn't like what he heard either.

He has his own version of the story and it isn't about stereotypes or about the interplay of private and public authority in the family unit. It's about romance gone wrong and a father who doesn't get enough time with his kids.  "You are wrong," he told Lessard. "I was all for a hyphenated name.  She has played a charade the whole way."

The professor was talking about public policy and he was talking about pain. "I love my kids," he said. "I could be run over by a bus today and there would be no recognition."  Lessard had no response and moved on to another question. But what could she say?  Trociuk won in the Supreme Court of Canada and it hasn't helped." < In practical terms, Canadians are being governed instead by career Homosexual Activists like  Mary Woo Simms>.

Ian Mulgrew
Vancouver Sun

• Lessard, Hester: Feminist Legal Theory-Law 369
• Lessard, Hester:  Women, Law, and Social Change: Core Readings and Current Issues
• Lessard, Hester:  Introduction to Private Law Relationships

Activist BC Judge Daphne Smith claims Fathers don't need adoption notice, Canadian Supreme Court in Trociuk says WRONG!!

COMMENT:  If Justice Daphne Smith isn't a Judge in Criminal Breach of Trust, we'd like to know what it takes for a BC Judge to be CHARGED with Breach?.  Oh yeah, in Prince George, at least, it's 25 years of sexual assault while on the BC Bench and the final whistle blowing when a past victim of the Judge sees her daughter about to be sexually assaulted as she was in her youth.  We are calling on the BC Attorney General to pull Justice Daphne Smith off the BC Bench immediately and file criminal charges against her for Criminal Breach of Trust  and in view of the Statutes she's discarded and the SCC decision addressing this question specifically,  charge Daphne Smith also for TREASON.

Madam Justice Daphne Smith is WRONG to extrapolate into the administration of the Adoption Act  the presently UN-Constitutional, illegal practice in BC Birth Certificate registrations of permitting BC Female Parents to declare the BC Male Parents "UNACKNOWLEDGED  by the Mother".  At the stroke of a Mother's pen, any and all Parental Rights of a Father may be expunged in British Columbia.   The Supreme Court of Canada  (SCC) has called this Decision a "no-brainer", ruling in the Trociuk v. British Columbia (Attorney General) that BC's Registration of Live Births Form is a violation of a Natural Father's Charter Rights.  One would expect the practice to be STOPPED immediately following the SCC's Order.  It didn't. 

Instead the Form was amended invite the Mother to appoint anyone she pleases as a Co-Parent. A likely factor was UVic's Homosexualist professor Hester Lessard's campaign following the SCC decision arguing that Trociuk v. British Columbia (Attorney General) must be ignored because it militates against Homosexual Rights, "affirms arcane ideas that biology constitutes parenthood", and (horror of horrors!) legitimizes a disgusting  "heterosexual view of the Family".  

The Co-Parent of course doesn't have to pay Child Support or pay the Mortgage on the home they have just moved into with "Mom".  That is the role of the Natural Father or any man the mother can get sexually involved with for a period of six months or more.  (Take Warning, guys!!) This later addition is thanks to a modification of the Family Relations Act by the BC NDP trying to deal with the debilitating cost of Welfare and Low-Income housing for Single Mothers on the BC economy.  Equal Parenting would have been THE solution for that problem too, but NDP would never affirm a Father's Rights, now would they.  (So far the BC Liberals are no better.) 

In the end, BC Courts and government agencies have made BC women their Hookers, and continue to act as their Pimps .

See also Abortion Veto for Dads; Adoption Veto for Dads; OptionsBC.com

• BC's Registration of Live Births Form;  
• BC Vital Statistics Agency - Forms
• vital statistics act, bc - Google Search
• adoption act, bc - Google Search
• name act, bc - Google Search
• 2004-10-29 Dad files $6.3M B.C. birth certificate lawsuit - CTV -29OCT04

DAVID BERNER

"A B.C. Supreme Court judge has ruled that an unmarried woman has no obligation to tell the biological father of their child anything about the child, including her choice to put the child up for adoption.  Of course, this decision was made by a woman, Justice Daphne Smith.    ...   Thank goodness, many local family lawyers, also women, have denounced this stupid sexist ruling."   David Talks/The Berner Monologues: You Have No Right to Know Your Father

See also Affirmative Action  The Law Society and Judiciary was not immune to the ravages of Affirmative Action on Canadians.  The Chief Example of the evils of Affirmative Action is our own SCC Chief Justice Beverley Mclachlin.  See also  Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, Catharine A. MacKinnon