Dr. Gehl sought declarations from the Court, among others, that she was
entitled to Indian Status under s. 6 (1)(a) of the Indian Act and that section 6 of the Indian Act, the Indian Registrar's Proof of Paternity Policy («the Policy»), which requires certain kinds of proof of a person's ancestry in an application for Indian registration, and the Registrar's decision in her case, were contrary to the guarantee of equality in s. 15 (1) of the Charter because they discriminate against descendants of
illegitimate children of Indian women on the basis of sex.
Section 11 (e) of the Indian Act, S.C. 1951, c. 29, provided that the
illegitimate child of an Indian woman was
entitled to register «unless the Registrar is satisfied that the father of the
child was not an Indian».