Does a frisk search of male inmates by female guards violate section 15(1) of the Charter?

Weatherall v. Canada (Attorney General) (1993), 1993 CanLII 112 (SCC), 16 C.R.R. (2d) 256, 83 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (S.C.C.), considered the issue of whether the frisk search of male inmates by female guards was discriminatory because female inmates were not subject to frisk searches by male guards. The court concluded that it was doubtful that there was a violation of s. 15(1) of the Charter. At p. 259 C.R.R., p. 5 D.L.R., La Forest J. concluded: It is also doubtful that s. 15(1) is violated. In arguing that the impugned practices result in discriminatory treatment of male inmates, the appellant points to the fact that female penitentiary inmates are not similarly subject to cross-gender frisk searches and surveillance. The jurisprudence of this court is clear: equality does not necessarily connote identical treatment and, in fact, different treatment may be called for in certain cases to promote equality. Given the historical, biological and sociological differences between men and women, equality does not demand that practices which are forbidden where male officers guard female inmates must also be banned where female officers guard male inmates. The reality of the relationship between sexes is such that the historical trend of violence perpetrated by men against women is not matched by a comparable trend pursuant to which men are the victims and women the aggressors. Biologically, a frisk search or surveillance of a man's chest area conducted by a female guard does not implicate the same concerns as the same practice by a male guard in relation to a female inmate. Moreover, women generally occupy a disadvantaged position in society in relation to men. That statement, in my opinion, must be considered in light of the issue that was before the court. It does not support the contention that the age distinction between males and females is justifiable on the basis of women's historical position in society.