You want the actual letter. We may have it in our office, but it will take time to get it. The National Archives has all our documentation. We gave all our documentation on the court challenges program to the National Archives. We can retrieve it, and we will get the letter. I gave you the date in our brief.
That was one example of utmost discrimination. Another example is one of our members. A brother and sister lived together, and the brother funded his elderly sister and looked after her. He said if M. and H., a same sex couple, could get funding and family benefits, why couldn't a brother and sister? He was looking after her. He was simply refused funding by the CCP. In other words, if you didn't fit the ideology, legal merit had no resonance with them at all.
We've tried and tried to say equality is different in different eyes. I can give you one of the earliest cases, Blainey versus the Ontario Hockey Association in 1986. It was the first really major equality issue. In that case a young girl wanted to play hockey in a boys' hockey team. She went to the Ontario Court of Appeal and the court said yes, she should be able to play hockey in a boys' hockey team. Well, I think she lasted maybe half a season because she was banged into the boards, and she found it discomforting. REAL Women's view was of course we should have equality in hockey, but having a girls' team and a boys' team was the rational thing to do. Because of this interpretation and the funding from CCP—and LEAF was involved in that case in 1986—we got this unusual idea that women should be able to play in mens' hockey teams. That's why we have separate Olympic hockey teams, male and female. That shows a different interpretation of equality. Those who don't fit the ideology of the administrators of the program are simply left out in the cold, and, as I say, we've had to fund over 30 cases ourselves because we didn't fit the ideology.