Does anyone know if the right of a child of divorced parents to have their education paid for has ever been challenged as a violation of Charter rights. It seems there may be a violation of section 15 equality rights on 2 fronts. First, the parents of a divorced child are obligated to pay for the post-secondary education of their children, an obligation that does not exist for all parents. Second, the children of parents who are not divorced have no legal right to have their education paid for. Regardless of the fact that most parents have the best intentions for their children, the reality is some parents may choose not to pay for their childs education due to lack of resources or other reasons. Despite the supposed best intentions of Parliament the law still leads to unecessary litigation to resolve these issues. For the sake of argument if I was still married I would not be obligated to pay, if I wanted to pay and my wife didn't she could not easily take me to court over the issue and, my child would have difficulty litigating to force me to pay.
Simply put, the child of divorced parents has been granted a legal right that does not exist for other children and, divorced parents have been given an obligation that does not exist for married parents. On both fronts there appears to be a violation of Section 15.
Furthermore it may not be in the best interest of all children to pursue post-secondary education at 18 as they may not be ready. Should married parents tell their child that they need to shape up before they are willing to pay, that child would have little recourse. If the same child came from divorced parents they could easily litigate the issue.
Does anyone know if this has been challenged or how it got by the Human Rights Law Section of DOJ?
| 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. |
| (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
|