Sandra Lovelace v. Canada, Communication No. 24/1977: Canada 30/07/81, UN Doc. CCPR/C/13/D/24/1977.

Nature of the Case

Challenge of law that stripped Indian woman of Indian status after marriage to non-Indian man; Whether lost cultural benefits has continued effect; What constitutes belonging to a minority group under Article 27 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); Whether interference with Article 27 of ICCPR was equal to a breach of the provision; Whether denial of the right to live on reserve was reasonable and objective; Equality/Non-discrimination; Discrimination based on gender.

Enforcement of the Decision and Outcomes

The Indian Act was amended in 1985 to eliminate gender discrimination in determining Indian status. The amendments also restored status of aboriginal women who had lost status through the old legislation’s “marrying out” provisions. As of June 1995, the amended Act allowed for the reinstatement of 95,429 persons, more than half of whom were women (57.2%).  However, the current legislation still discriminates against certain aboriginal women, as compared to aboriginal men. In addition, the Supreme Court of British Columbia, found that the 1985 amendments did not eliminate all instances of gender discrimination because the children of women born of Indian mothers and non-Indian fathers could still be denied the right to Indian status.

Significance of the Case

This case represented an important step forward in eliminating gender discrimination in Canadian law as well as challenging the traditional gender hierarchy within the Maliseet group itself.  Sandra Lovelace Nicolas has gone on to become a prominent Canadian Senator. Litigation in Canada has continued with regard to passing Indian status on to children who do not qualify as at least 50% Indian (having at least 2 Indian grandparents) on the basis of “residual discrimination” as was argued in McIvor v. Canada (Registrar of Indian and Northern Affairs), 2009 BCCA 153, [2009] 2 C.N.L.R. 236 (B.C.C.A.).

Refer to Secondary Sources page for links to HRC decisions in this case.