The PHS Case and Federalism-Based Alternatives to Charter Activism

In the recent case of Canada (AG) v PHS Community Services (PHS, often called the Insite Decision), the Supreme Court of Canada purported to offer a case-specific decision limited to Vancouver’s Insite injection facility. The decision saw the Court declare that the Federal Minister of Health could not decline to continue an exemption from narcotics provisions for the Insite Clinic, which provided an injection site for narcotics users in Downtown Eastside Vancouver. Despite the Court’s claim to want a case-specific decision, I argue in the present discussion that by basing their decision on section 7 of the Charter, rather than using the alternative federalism argument that was available, the Court adopted a more activist route with more disruptive future legal consequences.

Download Full-text

Public Interest Standing, Access to Justice, and Democracy under the Charter: Canada (AG) v Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence

Constitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnel ◽

10.21991/c9cd5d ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 22 (2) ◽

pp. 21

Author(s):

Dana Phillips

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Public Interest ◽

Sex Workers ◽

Access To Justice ◽

Supreme Court Of Canada ◽

Downtown Eastside ◽

The Supreme Court

In 2012 the Supreme Court of Canada issued itsdecision in Canada (AG) v Downtown EastsideSex Workers United Against Violence (SWUAV).1Th e case centered on whether or not thoseinvolved in protecting vulnerable sex workershave standing to challenge the criminalizationof prostitution-related activities on their behalf.SWUAV represents a signifi cant break with previousjurisprudence on standing: it saw the Courttransform its vision of public interest standing,viewing it for the fi rst time as an access to justiceissue.

Download Full-text

The great canadian juice war

The Cambridge Law Journal ◽

10.1017/s0008197399302014 ◽

1999 ◽

Vol 58 (2) ◽

pp. 265-293

Author(s):

David Freedman

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Tomato Juice ◽

Recent Case ◽

Supreme Court Of Canada ◽

The Supreme Court

IN the recent case of Cadbury Schweppes Inc. v. FBI Foods Inc. (1999) 167 D.L.R. (4th) 577, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the case of an action for breach of confidence involving “Clamato” juice (a mixture of clam broth and tomato juice). For the uninitiated, Clamato juice is mixed with vodka, oregano and Worcestershire sauce to become a “Bloody Caesar”, a drink popular with Canadians but apparently few others.

Download Full-text

Le contrôle judiciaire des erreurs de droit en présence d'une clause privative

Les Cahiers de droit ◽

10.7202/042489ar ◽

2005 ◽

Vol 23 (1) ◽

pp. 5-20

Author(s):

Patrice Garant ◽

Sylvio Normand

Keyword(s):

New Brunswick ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Rule Of Law ◽

Case Law ◽

Administrative Law ◽

Recent Case ◽

Supreme Court Of Canada ◽

Court Cases ◽

The Rule Of Law ◽

The Supreme Court

Administrative Tribunals have jurisdiction to deal with questions of law. In the exercise of such jurisdiction they may sometimes make mistakes in the construction of the statutes, regulations or other instruments. Even in the presence of a privative clause, an inferior tribunal should not be the supreme interpret of the law. It is one of the requirements of the « rule of law » that the Superior Court should have a supervisory « droit de regard ». Traditionally, only errors of law going to jurisdiction were out of the shield of the privative clause ; the Superior Courts used to restrain their intervention only after charactarizing the alleged error as « jurisdictional error of law ». Two difficulties came to arise from the approach about whether there exists an error of jurisdiction or one « merely » of law. Firstly, who can tell whether there is a genuine error of law. Secondly, what criteria transmute in the minds of Superior Court Judges an error into one of jurisdiction. The recent case law convinces us of the necessity of a different approach in order to achieve some clarity in this field of Administrative law. Mr. Justice Dickson of the Supreme Court of Canada hints at it in the Nispawin and the New Brunswick Liquor Corporation cases. This approach would put an end to the confusion that still prevail in other Supreme Court cases like Blanco or Labrecque. The distinction between errors of law going to jurisdiction and « merely » errors of law is unrational and so unpracticable that it should be abandoned and replaced by what we suggest in the following lines... Mr. Justice Robert Reid of the Ontario Divisional Court has also expressed the same concern in a remarquable judgment.

Download Full-text

Kahkewistahaw First Nation v Taypotat – Whither Section 25 of the Charter?

Constitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnel ◽

10.21991/c92q2k ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 25 (2) ◽

pp. 39

Author(s):

Jennifer Koshan ◽

Jonnette Watson Hamilton

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Potential Application ◽

First Nation ◽

Recent Case ◽

Supreme Court Of Canada ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Missed Opportunity

The Supreme Court of Canada has to date delivered eight Charter equality decisions in an Aboriginal context. In the most recent case, Kahkewistahaw First Nation v Taypotat, the Court unanimously dismissed Louis Taypotat’s challenge to his community’s election code requirement that members of the First Nation running for election as Chief or Band Councillor have a Grade 12 education or its equivalent.We contend that the absence of a section 25 analysis in Taypotat was a missed opportunity, particularly because Taypotat is the only section 15(1) decision of the Supreme Court with an Aboriginal government as respondent. In the following part, we review the Court’s approach to section 25 and the potential application of section 25 in Taypotat. We conclude with a plea to litigators and the courts to move section 25 jurisprudence forward.

Download Full-text

RELIGION AND LAW IN R V NS: FINDING SPACE TO RE-THINK THE BALANCING ANALYSIS

Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice ◽

10.22329/wyaj.v32i1.4513 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 32 (1) ◽

pp. 25

Author(s):

Blair Major

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Critical Reflection ◽

Recent Case ◽

Supreme Court Of Canada ◽

Starting Point ◽

Religion And Law ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Meaningful Engagement

In this article, the author argues against the balancing approach used in the recent case of the Supreme Court of Canada R v NS (2012). It is argued that this approach inhibits critical reflection on the complex philosophical issues that underlie the decision, and that it closes itself off to meaningful engagement with diverse perspectives. These arguments are developed by reflecting on the idea of incommensurability and on Alasdair MacIntyre’s theory of tradition. The author concludes that this analysis provides a starting point for developing an approach that has greater capacity for critical reflection and is more capable of embracing diversity. L'auteur critique l'approche utilisée dans la récente décision de la Cour Suprême du Canada R c NS (2012), laquelle se fondait sur la recherche d'un équilibre entre la liberté de religion et l'équité du procès. Sa critique – fondée sur l'idée d'incommensurabilité et la théorie de tradition d'Alisdair MacIntyre – démontre que l'approche retenue par la Cour Suprême limite l'analyse critique de questions philosophiques complexes que sous-tendent la décision, et refuse d'aborder sérieusement des perspectives diverses. L'analyse de l'auteur offre un point de départ pour développer une approche dotée d'une plus grande capacité pour la réflexion critique et promet de mieux incorporer la diversité.

Download Full-text