|
 |
|
|
|
Reported CasesAreas of Law Considered in this case: - Statutory Interpretation - Artificial Insemination - Appeals - Family Benefits Act Re Clifton and Director of Income Maintenance Branch, Ministry of Community & Social Services, (1985) 53 O.R. (2d) 33 (Divl. Crt.) Sometimes the most innocuous-looking statutory appeals turn into the most interesting cases, both legally and practically. This one certainly did, and had an interesting anecdotal ending, and sequela. Deborah Clifton had applied for a family benefits allowance as the sole support mother to a thirteen-month-old child. She refused to give any information as to the identity of the father, as required under the Family Benefits Act. In fact, Ms. Clifton filed a statutory declaration before the Social Assistance Review Board stating that she was unaware of the father's identity. Ms. Clifton was denied an allowance. Ms. Clifton appealed the denial of the allowance to the Divisional Court. In her factum, or written argument, her counsel argued that the inquiry into the paternity of the child was an irrelevant invasion of her privacy. Her counsel also may have argued that Ms. Clifton's rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated. Although Ms. Clifton did not wish to tell the Director, or the Social Assistance Review Board about the circumstances surrounding the conception of her child, she did tell our national radio station, which told all of Toronto that listens. Not stopping at radio publicity, Ms. Clifton and child were also the subject of a full-page article, complete with a charming picture of the child, in one of Toronto's daily newspapers. This publicity appeared after the written arguments were filed, but just before, or on the day of the oral arguments in Court. In the factum, or written argument required to be filed by each party in the appeal, I argued that the Director had discharged his duty, under the Family Benefits Act and Regulations, to inquire into, and verify any statements in an application, especially where the information is necessary to determine eligibility for an allowance. Since the matter was newsworthy, the Osgoode Hall correspondent was in Court. I was pleased to assist him at break, explaining the arguments of both sides, and answering his questions about Court procedure. I explained to him that it was extremely unlikely that either of the counsel, or any member of the Judge's panel, would mention the press coverage, or the circumstances surrounding the child's conception. No mention was made in Court of the press coverage, or the facts disclosed in the press coverage. Ms. Clifton had not wanted any male to have any paternity claims on her child, according to the press. So, she had collected sperm donations from three men who met her criteria for intelligence, physique and looks, and mixed the sperm donations together. Then, she artificially inseminated herself, using a sterilized turkey baster, as recommended in the Artificial Insemination section of Every Woman's Medical Encyclopedia, the press reported. Mr. Justice Steele's reported decision uses verbatim, entire sections of my written argument, as set out in my client's factum. This is the greatest compliment that any Judge or Justice can give counsel; the argument is so persuasive that the Justice cannot improve on the argument at all so it is reproduced in the Justice's decision verbatim. The statute authorized the invasion of the privacy of Ms. Clifton because she applied for a benefit. There was a right to refuse the application for lack of information. Ms. Clifton's appeal was dismissed. I returned to my office to a message asking me to report to the Photocopying Room. When I did, the photocopying clerk told me that she had a present for me, but that if I accepted the present she was not able to tell me whom the present was from. I agreed to these terms. I was handed a brown paper bag. There were a lot of my colleagues at Crown Law Civil standing in the hall outside the Photocopying Room at this time, and peering into the Photocopy Room to see what was happening. I opened the bag to find that I had been presented with A STERILIZED TURKEY BASTER. Raucous laughter erupts from the hall. The photocopy clerk tells me that my great win should be celebrated with a little momento. It seemed that every counsel and employee of the Attorney General's staff congratulated me, or spoke to me about this case for the next few weeks. I took the turkey baster home, and put it in the bottom drawer of the stove. Years later, while my mother was basting the turkey for Christmas dinner, her turkey baster broke. Mom consulted with her sister, my aunt, and my sister, the surgeon. Where could Mom get another turkey baster on Christmas Day, when all the stores were closed? Mom telephoned me to inquire as to whether I still had the sterilized turkey baster that had been presented to me after I won that artificial insemination case. I replied that I still had the sterilized turkey baster. Had it been used for anything, Mom asked. No, I replied, its still in the package sterilized and sealed. I was asked to hurry up and arrive at my mother's with the sterilized turkey baster. I did. Four generations took turns basting the turkey that year. The circumstances of this case, and how I had been gifted the turkey baster were recounted. All twenty-four of us at the dinner table that year were agreed on one thing: that turkey was the best we had ever had.
|
OF SPECIAL INTEREST: Linda Kolyn, LL.B. 
|
|
|
Web Site Contents Copyright © 2004-2021 Linda H. Kolyn, LL.B. All Rights Reserved. |
|
WEB SITE PRIVACY POLICY |
|
