Sandra Lovelace v. Canada, Communication No. R.6/24, U.N. Doc. Supp. No. 40 (A/36/40) at 166 (1981).
Submitted by: Sandra Lovelace
State party concerned: Canada
Date of communication: 29December 1977
The Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a/
Meeting on 30 July 1981;
Having concluded its consideration ofcommunication No. R.6/24 submitted to the Committee by Sandra Lovelace under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
Having taken into account all writteninformation made available to it by the authors of the communication and by the State party concerned;
adopts the following:
1. The author ofthe communication dated 29 December 1977 and supplemented by letters of 17 April 1978, 28 November 1979 and 20 June 1980, is a 32-year-old woman, living in Canada. She was born and registered as"Maliseet Indian" but has lost her rights and status as an Indian in accordance with section 12 (1) (b) of the Indian Act, after having married a non-Indian on 23 May 1970. Pointing out that an Indian manwho marries a non-Indian woman does not lose his Indian status, she claims that the Act is discriminatory on the rounds of sex and contrary to articles 2 (1), 3, 23 (1) and (4), 26 and 27 of theCovenant. As to the admissibility of the communication, she contends that she was not required to exhaust local remedies since the Supreme Court of Canada, in The Attorney-General of Canada v. JeanetteLavalle, Richard Isaac et al. v. Ivonne Bedard /1974/ S.C.R. 1349, held that section 12 (1) (b) was fully operative, irrespective of its inconsistency with the Canadian Bill of Rights on account ofdiscrimination based on sex.
2. By its decision of 18 July 1978 the Human Rights Committee transmitted the communication, under rule 91 of the provisional rules of procedure, to the State party...
tracking img