This piece is from U of T’s Prof. Denise Réaume on In the Matter of Marriage Commissioners Appointed Under The Marriage Act, 1995, S.S. 1995, c. M-4.1 from The Women’s Court of Canada blog. Thank you to Jennifer Koshan, who pointed me to this.
….it is a relief to see an appellate court decide an adverse effects case in favour of equality claimants. However, the brevity of the reasoning is unfortunate. One can see how allowing a religious conscience exemption to marriage commissioners would perpetuate a pre-existing disadvantage by potentially keeping out of reach an opportunity long denied to same-sex couples, but the dominant strain of argument in Kapp is that it is disadvantage that occurs through prejudice and stereotyping that is the concern of s. 15. The Court of Appeal instead refers to disadvantage involving stereotypes about the worthiness of same-sex unions.