This morning's Globe and Mail features a prominent advertisement for Queen's University:
The bold statement is hard to miss:
But is it quite true? To get a definitive answer we will need to wait for Kerri Froc's book. She is writing the first comprehensive examination of its history, interpretation and potential application with the goal of ensuring the Charter delivers on its promise of a fair, equal and democratic society for all Canadians.
In the interim, we can argue about why cases like M. v. H., 1999 CanLII 686 (SCC),  2 SCR 3, won by Martha McCarthy and Lynn Lovell or Miron v. Trudel, 1995 CanLII 97 (SCC),  2 SCR 418, won by (now Justice) Giovanna Roccamo, don't count.
The one about whether the charter's equality guarantees extend to same sex relationships, and the latter on whether standard automobile insurance policies set by provincial legislation which extended benefits only to married "spouses" of policy holder breached the Charter rights of unmarried couples. The entire extension of gay rights was built on M. v. H.
Perhaps these cases aren't about women's rights, but they are about how equality rights should be interpreted and extended.
The larger point made by Professor Froc is clearly valid – she contends that women's rights "have languished despite the Charter’s general equality clause, s. 15. It really has been a disappointment for women". She wonders about the potential use of section 28, which has not informed much recent jurisprudence.
The quote ends with the statistic I'm quibbling with: “For example, there hasn’t been a successful sex equality case brought by a woman at the Supreme Court of Canada.”
Can any Slaw readers find any other cases? Or explain what counts as a "sex equality case won by women at the Supreme Court of Canada".