McClung presided over the provincial appeal in Vriend v. Alberta, overturning the trial court's judgment in favour of Delwin Vriend, who had lost his job at a religious college because of his sexual orientation. In a manner uncharacteristic of its criticism of lower court decisions, however, The Supreme Court of Canada excoriated Justice McClung's reasoning for the kind of "neutral difference" approach argued unsuccessfully by the BC Government in its Eldridge decision. In the result, the Court embraced precisely what Justice McClung expressly rejected, and confirmed the trial judge's decision to "read in" to Alberta's Individual's Rights Protection Act sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination.
McClung later became a national figure with his "bonnet and crinolines" ruling in the sexual assault case of R. v. Ewanchuk. In his decision, he suggested that the teenage victim provoked her assailant by the way she dressed and the accused's actions were "far less criminal than hormonal" or that the victim could have stopped the assault with a "well-chosen expletive, a slap in the face or, if necessary, a well-directed knee." The case was unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court in 1999 in a decision written by fellow Alberta jurist, Justice Major; a concurring opinion by Quebec jurist, Justice L'Heureux-Dubé described his decision as perpetuating "archaic myths and stereotypes".
In reply, McClung wrote a letter to the National Post attacking L'Heureux-Dubé, describing her writing as overly personal and blaming her attitude for the rise in the suicide rate of Quebec men. This letter drew even more furor when it was pointed out that L'Heureux-Dubé's husband had committed suicide in 1978. McClung apologized in another letter to the National Post, claiming that he was not aware of the situation.[8]