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

2013 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 21
Author(s):  
Dana Phillips

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.

2018 ◽  
Vol 51 (4) ◽  
pp. 929-947
Author(s):  
Emmanuelle Richez ◽  
Erin Crandall

AbstractThis article analyzes an important discretionary power of the Supreme Court of Canada, the ability to award costs. With the use of an original data set, we explore trends in costs awarding in public interest litigation at the Supreme Court from 1970 to 2012. Our findings suggest that, over time, the Court has tended to favour nongovernment parties over government parties where the former are less likely to pay costs when they lose and more likely to receive costs when they win. In these cases, costs orders were more likely to benefit public interest litigants, such as nongovernmental organizations, than individual litigants and businesses. Together, these findings suggest a sensitivity to access to justice concerns when making costs orders, though some may argue that this sensitivity by the Court does not extend far enough.


Author(s):  
Florian Matthey-Prakash

Chapter 4 deals with the issue of lack of access to justice and attempts to find reasons for the inaccessibility of the higher judiciary. While it appears to be clear to observers that the Supreme Court and high courts are not accessible enough, surprisingly, there are actually no empirical studies that examine why this is the case. Some factors can, however, be deduced from a study dealing with the inaccessibility of district courts, that is, the lower judiciary.The fourth chapter also shows that the institution of Public Interest Litigation, for various reasons, cannot compensate for lack of access to justice, and that the state is not properly implementing (or not at all exploring) many other possible alternative mechanisms.


2013 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 85
Author(s):  
Dwight Newman

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.


2020 ◽  
pp. 111-121
Author(s):  
Geneviève Saumier

Arbitration is well established in Canada. All jurisdictions have implemented the 1958 New York Convention, the UNCITRAL Model Law on Arbitration and equivalent legislation for domestic arbitration. This generally supportive legal landscape for arbitration is often at odds with access to justice for consumers. As a result, several jurisdictions in Canada have adopted legislation to guarantee consumers’ access to local courts, including through class actions, notwithstanding the inclusion of arbitration clauses in their contracts. The constitutional division of powers in Canada entitles each province to adopt its own policy, leading to diversity across the country with regard to the enforceability of arbitration clauses in consumer contracts. In this paper, the author examines the tension between general support for arbitration and differentiated treatment of consumer arbitration in Canada. To that end, the author examines relevant legislation in several provinces (including Quebec and Ontario) as well as recent jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Canada (Dell Computer (2007), Telus (2011) and Wellman (2019)). The 2020 decision from the Supreme Court of Canada in Uber may signal a new openness toward extending protection to other vulnerable contracting parties such as employees.


2010 ◽  
pp. 85-89
Author(s):  
Manas Ranjan Samantaray ◽  
Mritunjay Sharma

Public interest litigation (PIL) has a vital role in the civil justice system in that it could achieve those objectives which could hardly be achieved through conventional private litigation.PIL, for instance, offers a ladder to justice to disadvantaged sections of society, provides an avenue to enforce diffused or collective rights, and enables civil society to not only spread awareness about human rights but also allows them to participate in government decision making. PIL could also contribute to good governance by keeping the government accountable. This article will show, with reference to the Indian experience, that PIL could achieve these important objectives. However, the Indian PIL experience also shows us that it is critical to ensure that PIL does not become a facade to fulfil private interests, settle political scores or gain easy publicity. Judiciary in a democracy should also not use PIL as a device to run the country on a day-today basis or enter the legitimate domain of the executive and legislature. The challenge for states, therefore, is to strike a balance in allowing legitimate PIL cases and discouraging frivolous ones. One way to achieve this balance could be to build in economic (dis)incentives in PIL and also confine it primarily to those cases where access to justice is undermined by some kind of disability. Judiciary, being the sentinel of constitutional statutory rights of citizens has a special role to play in the constitutional scheme. It can review legislation and administrative actions or decisions on the anvil of constitutional law. For the enforcement of fundamental rights one has to move the Supreme Court or the High Court’s directly by invoking Writ Jurisdiction of these courts. But the high cost and complicated procedure involved in litigation, however, makes equal access to jurisdiction in mere slogan in respect of millions of destitute and underprivileged masses stricken by poverty, illiteracy and ignorance. The Supreme Court of India pioneered the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) thereby throwing upon the portals of courts to the common man. Till 1960s and seventies, the concept of litigation in India was still in its rudimentary form and was seen as a private pursuit for the vindication of private vested interests. Litigation in those days consisted mainly of some action initiated and continued by certain individuals, usually, addressing their own grievances/problems. Thus, the initiation and continuance of litigation was the prerogative of the injured person or the aggrieved party. However, these entire scenario changed during Eighties with the Supreme Court of India led the concept of public interest litigation (PIL). The Supreme Court of India gave all individuals in the country and the newly formed consumer groups or social action groups, an easier access to the law and introduced in their work a broad public interest perspective.


2012 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 205
Author(s):  
Iris Fischer ◽  
Adam Lazier

After paying little attention to defamation law for decades, in the last few years the Supreme Court of Canada has begun to reshape the field. In what has been described as the “constitutionalization” of defamation law, the Court has recently recognized that the common law was out of step with the right to freedom of expression guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This process began in 2008 with the Court’s decision in WIC Radio v. Simpson, which clarified and expanded the scope of the fair comment defence. The Court went further the following year with Grant v. Torstar Corp, which recognized an entirely new defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest.


2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 61-82
Author(s):  
Nathan Dawthorne

In December 2014, despite the Supreme Court of Canada finding Canada's prostitution laws unconstitutional, the Conservative government passed a bill criminalizing the buying of sex and the advertisement of sex for sale. Sex work has a long history as a hot-button topic, and it continues to remain newsworthy throughout the country. This public discussion in some contexts has privileged certain lobbyists and so-called advocates, disregarding or distorting the voices of sex workers themselves. This territory is starkly heteronormative, reinforcing gendered stereotypes and naturalizing certain types of heterosexual behaviour while ignoring a spectrum of other realities. By analysizing depictions of sex work published for 2013 in the London Free Press, a politically centre-right newspaper printed in a midsized Canadian city, this paper provides analysis of articles about sex work in the local-regional context of London, Ontario (Canada). Exposing a Foucauldian rarefaction of discourse, the analysis works to unveil ideological underpinnings, fleshing out a distorted gendered discourse. 


2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hamish Stewart

In this article, the author considers the constitutionality of Canada’s new law on prostitution: Bill C-36. When the new sex work law was first introduced into Parliament, a number of advocacy groups and commentators argued that it was unconstitutional because of its failure to respond to the concerns raised in Bedford v. Canada, a case where the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the old sex work law on the ground that its negative impact on sex workers’ security of the person outweighed its nuisance abatement objective. This author agrees that Bill C-36 may be unconstitutional, but for a different reason. The new sex work law adheres to the constitutional norms invoked in Bedford by making use of two novel policy objectives: discouraging sex work and reducing the danger of sex work to sex workers. In practice, however, these objectives are likely to conflict with one another. As a result, Bill C-36 is an incoherent piece of legislation that may be unconstitutional for creating arbitrary and grossly disproportionate effects on the security of the person of sex workers.


2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Sankoff

The Supreme Court of Canada recently denied leave to appeal in Reece v. Edmonton (City), a 2-1 decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal, which focused on the right of private parties to seek judicial intervention on behalf of animals. In this article, the author examines the implications of this "lost opportunity" to develop an important area of law relating to public interest standing, explores the important questions that were at stake in the appeal, and suggests why the Supreme Court should have decided otherwise.La Cour suprême du Canada a récemment rejeté la demande d’autorisation d’appel de l’affaire Reece v. Edmonton (Ville), – une décision (2 contre 1) de la Cour d’appel de l’Alberta – qui portait sur le droit de simples individus de demander une intervention judiciaire au nom des animaux. Dans le présent article, l’auteur examine les conséquences de cette [TRADUCTION] « occasion ratée » de développer un important domaine du droit relatif à l’intérêt public, et de traiter les questions sérieuses qui étaient soulevées dans l’appel; il tente d’expliquer pourquoi la Cour suprême aurait dû rendre une décision différente.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document