Single Lesson Case: Persons Case Petition and Letters Answers

This guide has been written to provide teachers with some detailed answers to the analysis questions
posed in the case. These answers are not based on student work and have been written by the Virtual
Historian staff. Do not expect this much detail in typical student work. Please use these answers only as
a guide for evaluation and as a starting point for discussion or further activities.

Source 1: Petition of August 27, 1927, containing the five Alberta women’s two questions
Question 1) When was the letter written? Who wrote it and who was it addressed to?

Answer: The letter was written on August 27, 1927 by Emily Murphy, Henrietta Edwards, Nellie McClung,
Louise McKinney, and Irene Parlby. Specifically, it was likely written by Emily Murphy who handled the
correspondence of the Famous Five. It was addressed to the Governor-General in Council of the
Canadian government in Ottawa. Students can find these answers both in the source references and in
the text of the letter itself. Students hopefully will learn to check source material references on a regular
basis.

Question 2) For what purpose was the letter written? How are the Senate of Canada and possible
amendments to the British North America Act involved?

Answer: For this question, the answers are found in the subject area of the reference material, in the
letter, and possibly in the introductory summary information. The letter was written to change the
constitution so that women could be eligible for the Canadian Senate. The constitution (British North
American Act) was unclear concerning this matter so the petitioners were seeking an official statement.
The constitution might have needed to be amended to allow for a female person to be in the Canadian
Senate.

Source 2: Letter from Emily Murphy to the Deputy Minister of Justice, July 26 1928.

Question 1) Based on what the letter describes, what has happened to the original petition of the Famous
Five? What do you think the perspective is of the women involved in this petition? Why?

Answer: Since this letter is also an appeal, the original petition must have been rejected. The letter
mentions the need for the writer’s position to ‘be clear’, so the petitioner’s likely feel that their petition is
not being carefully considered. The women make specific legal comments that challenge the Supreme
Court’s decision. For example, the Famous Five state that with ‘no contrary intent being shown’, the word
person in the BNA act must refer to women as well as men. The women also refer to legal precedent in
the form of the Imperial Interpretative Act. The petitioners feel that the Supreme Court was in error in
focusing on the meaning of the word ‘qualified’ and did not address the petition’s focus on whether
women were considered ‘persons’ in the BNA Act. By not answering the question put forth in the petition,
the women feel that the matter is not resolved.

Question 2) Why might the Supreme Court of Canada have ruled against the Famous Five’s petition for
women to be confirmed as ‘persons’ under the British North America Act? Why is legal change often
resisted by those with power and influence?

Answer: While today in Canada we take rights almost for granted, in 1929 women’s rights were still a
divisive political and social issue. The rights of women had gradually been increasing, but there was
considerable resistance from governments. A government in power is often not likely to want to take risks
or ‘change the balance’ by providing a specific group with more legal rights. Not all women in Canada
could vote at this time. Prior to World War II, democratic governments were slow to take action in regards
to increasing people’s rights, especially those of groups who had traditionally been denied many rights.
Sexism also undoubtedly played a part in such thinking.

Question 3) Examine the legal arguments made by Emily Murphy. What evidence and logic does she
use to make her points?

Answer: Emily Murphy’s legal arguments are quite specific and detailed. First, she states that the
Supreme Court seems to have ruled based upon matters not relevant to the British North America Act.
The key legal concept of precedent is used when she refers to the Imperial Interpretation Act. This earlier
Act requires interpretations to assume words such as ‘person’ refer to both sexes unless specifically
stated. She uses legal phrasing when stating that because ‘no contrary intent’ was shown, the word
person must refer to both genders. Ms Murphy feels the Supreme Court was off topic in discussing the
qualifications of Senators as that is legally dealt with in the Senate. In her opinion, the Supreme Court did
not address the question of the meaning of the word ‘person’ but focused in error upon the meaning of
the word ‘qualified’ as applied to the word ‘person’. In essence, she argues that the Supreme Court did
not make a legal ruling on the matter as addressed to them and were off-topic when making their ruling.

Source 3: Decision of the Lords of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, October 18 1929.
Question 1) What type of source is this? In what ways is it similar and different to the letters you have
examined? (Hint-Who produced it? Why? For what audience was it produced?)

Answer: This is a formal legal ruling from the highest government-appointed legal body for the British
Empire (including Canada). The other sources were a petition and a letter requesting an appeal to a
Supreme Court ruling on the petition. All three sources are involved in the legal process, showing how
the petition started through how it was resolved. This document is unique because it is a formal
governmental legal ruling by appointed judges. The document is also intended for publication to a wide
audience (especially those in the legal profession) and resulted in changes to existing laws as well as
establishing legal precedent for further expansion of women’s rights.

Question 2) How are the historical context and perspective different or similar to your own? (Hint-How
were the rights of women different then? Would a legal appeal today still need Britain to make the final
decision?)

Answer: Context is crucial to this question. The differences are more likely to be noted by students.
Students need to recall how the legal and social status of women differed from today. Women’s rights
were a very divisive and political issue and the vote was not available across all of Canada. Canada was
also not fully independent until 1982 when the constitution was repatriated to Canada. For similarities, it
could be argued that women’s rights have still not been fully met in Canada. From a global perspective,
women’s rights are still a serious issue today.

Question 3) What is the main argument of the source? How is this argument similar to any of the other
sources? What would account for such similarities?

Answer: The ruling first clarifies the question to refer to whether women are considered ‘qualified
persons’ eligible to become members of the Senate of Canada. While stating that a unanimous judgment
by the Supreme Court of Canada is usually definitive, the Privy Council noted that the word ‘person’ is
ambiguous and can include both genders. Furthermore, other sections of the BNA act use the word
person to include women and ‘male persons’ is used when being specific is important. The Privy Council
also agreed that the Imperial Interpretation Act suggests the word ‘persons’ is a reference to both
genders.

Answer: The argument is very similar to the Famous Five’s arguments against the original Supreme
Court ruling in Source #2. Additionally, the original petition question from Source #1 is referenced.
Answer: The similarities are due to the fact that the petition started to whole legal process and is quoted
during each step of the petition. The legal arguments used by the Famous Five are also the same as the
final legal ruling.

Final Activity:
Write a news article about the Privy Council ruling and the Famous Five. Pretend you are a newspaper
writer from 1929 and speculate on what this ruling could mean for women in Canada. Be sure to use the
details and perspective of the sources you have examined to help you write.

Note: For this activity, a satisfactory news article should have several elements. The format of a news
article should be followed, including proper spelling and grammar. The basis of the story should follow
the ‘5 W’s’ of who, what, when, where, and why. The basic essentials of the story should be summarized
and some opinion should be stated about how and why the legal ruling is important. The historical context
of the time should be recognized to avoid present-day judgments. Specifics should ideally come directly
from the Virtual Historian case the students just examined using sources as evidence and historical
empathy as a cognitive tool to contextualize them.