The “Official Version of Law” Conceals Inequality

Aryana Patel

Feb 5, 2025

8 min read

Updated: Feb 5, 2025

At a Glimpse:

In Canada, the “Official Version of Law” is a basic interpretation of the law that emphasizes how it is autonomous and equitable; however, in practice, the law often upholds systemic biases that fail to represent all Canadians. To explain the fallacies prevalent in the “Official Version of Law,” this paper first contests the decision of the Supreme Court in the Stella Bliss case of 1979 that demonstrates how the law’s limited understanding of equality—as uniform treatment—undermines the disadvantages women encounter (Majury, 2002). Next, this paper explores the double standards revealed in the 1997 RDS case, which illustrates how judges receive disparate treatment on the basis of race and gender (Backhouse, 2021). Finally, we must consider how colonial origins of law enforcement have established systemic injustices that continue to increase incarceration rates among Aboriginal women (National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, 2019, excerpt 2). By assessing the controversial decision made in the Stella Bliss case, the diverse treatment of judges displayed in the RDS case, and the high incarceration rates of Aboriginal women, this paper argues that the “Official Version of Law” is an idealized portrayal of the legal system, used to mask underlying biases that prevent true impartiality, neutrality, and objectivity.

Key Insights and Analysis:

The Stella Bliss case of 1979 illustrates how the law preserves a limited understanding of equality that contradicts the “Official Version of Law.” Stella Bliss, a pregnant woman, was denied unemployment benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act. As specified by s. 46 of the act, pregnant people must apply for maternity benefits instead of employment insurance (Majury, 2002, p. 108). However, to qualify for maternity benefits, one had to have worked somewhere for ten weeks instead of the eight required for regular employment benefits. Unfortunately, Bliss did not meet that specific requirement, yet she met every other requirement necessary to be eligible for regular employment benefits (Majury, 2002, p. 108). Bliss believed this was disentitling to all pregnant women, arguing that s. 46 of the Employment Insurance Act violated s. (1)b of the Bill of Rights (Majury, 2002, p. 108).

However, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Bliss, stating that the act was not discriminatory, as the law was designed to apply objectively to all pregnant individuals (Majury, 2002). Justice Ritchie claimed that legislation does not create inequalities, “nature” does (Majury, 2002, p. 108), followed by him stating, “If s. 46 treated unemployed pregnant women differently from other unemployed persons, be they male or female, it is, it seems to me, because they are pregnant and not because they are women” (Majury, 2002, p. 108-109). The Supreme Court reasoned that the law was equal because all pregnant people were treated the same. Yet, it is primarily women who bear the financial and physical burdens of pregnancy; therefore, it is not “nature” that creates these inequalities; it is the law that sets them up. The Bliss decision illustrates inconsistencies in the “Official Version of Law,” as the uniform application of the law perpetuates biases that fail to accommodate gender-specific issues and inequalities. The legal system’s current interpretation of the law is used to enforce policies that ignore or worsen the inequalities certain minorities, such as women, face. People experience the law in various ways, emphasizing how the law must adapt to reflect the recurrent injustices in our society instead of relying on an equal application (Majury, 2002). In the case of Stella Bliss, if the law was created objectively, it should have considered a broader definition of equality that reflects the realities of women. The “Official Version of Law” reinforces the inequalities it seeks to eliminate, displaying its untruth (Majury, 2002).

The RDS case of 1997 further challenges the “Official Version of Law” by exposing the double standards upheld by the legal system that allow prejudice to determine the treatment of judges. The case involved Rodney Darren Smalls, a black teenager, who was arrested by a white police officer, Constable Donald Steinburg. Small ignored instructions from Constable Steinburg and was put into a chokehold after he tried to speak with his cousin, who was being arrested by Steinburg (Backhouse, 2021, p. 185). Rodney was charged with “assaulting a police officer, assaulting a police officer with intent to prevent the lawful arrest of another person, and obstruction of a police officer” based on disputed grounds (Backhouse, 2021, p. 185). Judge Corine Sparks, the pressing judge in this case, ruled in favor of Small. However, in her ruling, she recognized systemic racial bias in policing, underscoring how law enforcement occasionally targets minorities disproportionately (Backhouse, 2021, p. 186-187). This assertion grounded in the realities of systemic injustice raised controversy, and many accused Sparks of not being impartial. Although in the courtroom, judges can legitimately use unsubstantiated facts in their assessment of a case—defined as judicial notice—Judge Sparks was criticized for utilizing it.

Eventually, this case reached the Supreme Court of Canada. During the hearing of the case, one of the dissenting judges, Chief Justice Antonio Lamar, made several comments grounded in racist stereotypes. He suggested that based on Spark’s logic in the RDS case, he should be able to use judicial notice in cases of “Chinese gambling” or “[Roma] pickpockets” (Backhouse, 2021, p. 188-189). Justice Lamar’s comments were inappropriate, and complaints were filed against him by the Chinese Canadian National Council (Backhouse, 2021, p. 190). Yet they were ultimately dismissed.

It is ironic how Justice Lamar’s comments were overlooked because they were “hypothetical in nature” (Backhouse, 2021, p. 194), but Judge Sparks' comments were prejudicial. This disparate treatment opposes the ‘Official Version of Law,” as it is not applied equitably to everyone. While the “Official Version of Law” emphasizes how the judiciary is impartial, the treatment of Judge Sparks highlights that the law scrutinizes minority judges more severely for pursuing cases rooted in social realities. The viewpoints of the socially privileged, such as Justice Lamar—a white male—are always accepted, revealing fallacies in the law’s story. Judicial impartiality in this case was not based upon the judges themselves, but rather their race or gender. Moreover, this case highlights how the legal system discourages minority judges from offering diverse perspectives in the courtroom. Judicial notice is necessary for the law to offer a range of critical perspectives that ensure the legal system is impartial. (Wilson, 1990, p. 522). If judges continue to be suppressed from providing their own experiences, the law will consist solely of narratives from the privileged, who cannot always approach a case without bias. True impartiality is attained by applying multiple perspectives (Wilson, 1990, p. 515). The RDS case shows that the “Official Version of Law” conceals structural biases because judges are penalized disproportionately based on their external characteristics. The law operates according to societal power dynamics that favor dominant groups, rendering it as flawed.

Finally, the falsities of the “Official Version of Law” are revealed by the high incarceration rates amongst Aboriginal women. Currently, Indigenous women only make up around 4% of the population but they account for 40% of the federal prison population (National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, 2019, excerpt 2, p. 635). This disparity stems from the colonial origins of law enforcement as they were originally established to exert control over First Nation, Métis, and Inuit (FNMI) communities. (National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, 2019, excerpt 1, p. 254). The law undermines these systemic injustices, preventing the law from being neutral. Additionally, many Indigenous communities are impoverished and struggle with intergenerational trauma, factors that correlate to increases in property and drug offenses (National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, 2019, excerpt 2, p. 637). Colonial policies have resulted in Indigenous women being imprisoned for crimes that are attributed to their socioeconomic status (National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, 2019, excerpt 2, p. 637). Kassandra Churcher, the executive director of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, affirmed this by stating, “The justice system recreates the same patterns of state-sanctioned control, assimilation, and trauma that Indigenous people have endured for centuries” (National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, 2019, excerpt 2, p. 635). The legal system has become a legacy of colonialism. This legacy contradicts the principle of neutrality in the law’s story because the law overlooks the deeply-rooted effects of colonialism on Indigenous women.

Moreover, the legal system disregards the unique experiences of Indigenous people in Canada. Aboriginal women need different considerations, and this could have been improved through Glaude reports—pre-sentencing reports that contain critical information regarding the unique circumstances or experiences Indigenous offenders have faced (National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, 2019, excerpt 2, p. 641). Courts we’re expected to use these reports to determine an appropriate sentence. However, most women were either denied access to these reports, or they were used against them in court (National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, 2019, excerpt 2, p. 641). The legal system’s inability to offer Indigenous women resources that could reduce the historical impact of colonialism exposes more faults in the “Official Version of Law.” If the law were neutral, marginalized communities would have more access to vital resources to counteract existing biases in the legal system.

Justice claims to be blind to race, gender, nationality, and culture, but in reality, the law is not blind at all. Instead, it favours certain groups over others, placing minorities on the back burner, where they must navigate a system that repeatedly fails them. Indigenous women would no longer be disproportionately imprisoned if the law were neutral, indicating falsities in the “Official Version of Law.”

Final Thoughts and Reflections

To conclude, it’s evident that the “Official Version of Law” is a theoretical portrayal of the legal system, used to disguise fallacies that enable injustice, bias, and discrimination demonstrated in this paper by the decision made in the Stella Bliss case of 1979, the treatment of judges in the RDS case of 1997, and the high incarceration rates among Indigenous women. The Stella Bliss case highlights how the law’s objective approach is flawed because equal application of the law does not address the lived realities of women, upholding systemic biases. The RDS case demonstrates how judges are treated differently based on race or gender, preventing courts from embodying a range of critical perspectives. Finally, the overrepresentation of Indigenous women illustrates how the legal system criminalizes marginalized communities instead of resolving the underlying causes for the inequalities they face. The “Official Version of Law” is built upon historical injustices, biases, and conservative values that dismantle the law’s story of it being equitable. In order for Canada to become a system that legitimately serves all its citizens, it must move beyond the untruth of the “Official Version of Law.”

Meet the Author:

Hello, my name is Aryana Patel.

I’m currently in my first year at York University and enrolled in the Political Science program. By publishing on this website, I hope to use my voice to raise awareness and inform others about the injustices that still plague society. It’s important for us to stay educated and continue to challenge inequality whenever we encounter it.

Through open dialogue, I intend to inspire meaningful conversation and drive positive change. Thank you for engaging with my work. I hope it fosters the development of new perspectives!

Enjoy :)

References

Backhouse, C. (2021). Turning the tables on RDS: Racially revealing questions asked by white judges. Dalhousie Law Journal, 44(1), 181-208.

Majury, D. (2002). Women’s (in)equality before and after the Charter. In R. Jhappan (Ed.), Women’s legal strategies in Canada (2nd ed., pp. 101-134). University of Toronto Press.

National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. (2019). Reclaiming power and place: The final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. [excerpt 1].

Wilson, B. (1990). Will women judges really make a difference? Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 28(3), 507-522. https://doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.1764.