Straight Dad Seeks Same Benefit Given to Gays
Canada's Alexander Angus didn't receive parental-leave benefits
By Neal Colgrass, Newser Staff
Posted May 9, 2014 4:03 PM CDT

(Newser) – A Canadian man has filed a human rights complaint because he, as a heterosexual dad, couldn't receive parental-leave benefits available to mothers and same-sex parents, the National Post reports. Alexander Angus, who works for the city of Victoria, BC, wasn't eligible for leave benefits "because of a) my gender, and b) my sexual orientation," he wrote the city in 2010. "Because I am male, I do not qualify for these benefits, although if I were to marry another male I would? If this is correct it seems to be a blatant show of inequality." The HR director wrote back that she didn't "believe there is an inequity as a male cannot give birth."

So Angus only took three weeks' vacation, and never applied for leave benefits, although he planned to be his child's primary caregiver, Metro News reports. Recently the city and the union sought to have his complaint dismissed, reports the Province, because their new collective agreement does include leave benefits for all parents, "natural, adoptive, or same-sex." But a human-rights tribunal recommended mediation because Angus didn't receive benefits at the time: "Mr. Angus himself has received no remedy," wrote a tribunal member in the decision. (Click to read about a Florida man who tried to apply same-sex rights toward his effort to marry a laptop.)

More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
Straight Dad Seeks Same Benefit Given to Gays is...
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Showing 3 of 61 comments
May 11, 2014 12:30 PM CDT
If a company gives one person Parental Leave, then the other should get it also. I worked for a company that gives Parental Leave, so I took 2 weeks Parental Leave and 2 weeks annual leave when we adopted our 3 day old little girl, 23 years ago. My wife couldn't get leave where she worked.
May 10, 2014 12:17 PM CDT
So after looking at the whole picture, "..over his eligibility for Supplementary Employment Insurance Benefits" he should more than likely lose. The original " collective agreement" was a perk for just women, taking time off work for pregnancy and child care , They "collectively " agree to add a Gay person since , they would be assuming the role of child keeper. Now they have " collectively "added anyone taking time off work for childcare is able to receive that perk. The collective agreement was agreed by him, the other union members and his union body by a majority,and the company, just because it was unfair at the time doesn't give one employee the right to ask for back benefits, no matter how wrong it many sound.. You can only move forward, otherwise, Any and all agreements could be challenged by a single person at any time the whole process of the "collective agreement" would be useless. .
May 10, 2014 8:11 AM CDT
I hope ALL the LIBERAL left has homosexual children so they have something to be "HAPPY" or gay about.