Advocacy Projects

The Asper Centre’s mission is realizing constitutional rights through Advocacy, Education and Academic Research.  Our advocacy work entails a number of ongoing activities.  We strive to play a meaningful role in significant constitutional litigation in order to make contributions to the overall quality of constitutional rights advocacy in Canada.  In addition to our continued involvement in appropriate legal advocacy interventions at appellate level courts, the Asper Centre undertakes numerous advocacy projects with the assistance of students in our clinical legal education course and our student working groups.  These projects are developed through consultations with the private bar, non-governmental organizations, and our constitutional law faculty, and they include policy, legal reform, and support to trial level constitutional challenges.  For example, the Asper Centre makes numerous oral and written submissions in respect of proposed legislations or policies affecting constitutional rights.

Litigation

Policy Briefs

Clinical Course Projects

2016

  • Frank v. Attorney General
    • Students worked on the application for intervention of this case, developing a work plan, including how the intervention would inform the s. 3 right to vote in future cases. Students helped to draft the affidavit, notice of motion, motion record, and memorandum of argument, with consultation from the Asper Centre’s faculty advisors and the co-counsel to the intervention.

2015

  • KRJ Intervention
    • Students provided research and drafting support to our intervention in this case that focused on the constitutionality of sentencing provisions with retroactive effect
  •   Ernst v Alberta Energy Regulator
    • Students provided research and drafting support to our intervention in this case that looked at the effect of an immunity provision in the legislation applicable to the Alberta Energy Regulator. Students travelled to Ottawa in January to witness the argument they had worked being presented at the Supreme Court by our Litigator in Residence, Raj Anand.
  • Students worked on two additional projects exploring the application of Charter values to administrative decision-making and the possibility of a Charter claim in relation to prison conditions.

2014

  • SCC Interventions
    • Students worked on the Henry and B010 intervention at the Supreme Court of Canada, assisting in the drafting of the motions to intervene and the facta in each case. Students travelled to Ottawa to watch both cases being argued by our pro bono counsel.
  • Discrimination
    • Students worked on a project analyzing a potential discrimination complaint by a group advocating on behalf of deaf children.
  • Dangerous Offender Provisions
    • A team of students analyzed the dangerous offender provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada.

2013

  • Kazemi Estate v. Islamic Republic of Iran
    • A team of students provided litigation support to our intervention in Kazemi appeal. Students researched legal issues, drafted legal arguments and made a trip to Ottawa to watch the Centre’s arguments.
  • R. v. Kokopence
    • Students worked on the intervention material and the final factum filed at the Supreme Court of Canada in our intervention.
  • CSIS Practicea
    • Our project examining CSIS practices in relation to security certificates, which was continued by IHRP students into the second term practicum.
  • R. v. Anderson
    • Students worked on drafting our application for intervention in case and researching issues for the factum. Students traveled to the Supreme Court to watch the intervening argument.

2012

  • Litigation
    • Students worked on a number of applications for intervener standing at the Supreme Court of Canada in the cases of Canada v. Bedford, Divito v. Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the Czech Republic and Minister of Justice of Canada v. Bretislav Zajicek.
  • Women Prisoners in Canada
    • Two students researched and wrote an extensive report on the legal issues arising from our treatment of women prisoners in Canada, focusing on aboriginal women and women with mental health issues. This material was drawn upon in a brief we worked on with the International Human Rights Program for the Special Rapporteur for Indigenous Peoples.

2011

  • Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence v. Canada
    • A team of students provided litigation support to our intervention in the Downtown Eastside Sex Workers case challenging the prostitution sections of the Criminal Code. The case went to the Supreme Court of Canada on the issue of the standing of the challengers to bring the case. Students helped prepare the intervention materials including a response to the government’s challenge to our intervention, researched legal issues and helped to prepare the factum filed with the Supreme Court.
  • Jury Vetting
    • Two students worked on the intervention material and the final factum filed at the Supreme Court of Canada in our intervention into 5 cases focusing on the impact of the jury vetting issue in Ontario criminal cases.
  • Jury Representation
    • Two students provided litigation support through reviewing affidavits, attending cross-examinations and researching legal issues, in this appeal before the Ontario Court of Appeal. The issue was the lack of representation on the jury rolls of First Nations on reserve people. The students continued their work in the second term for the practicum to assist in the drafting of the factum and attended all 3 days of the appeal at the Court of Appeal
  • Refugee Law Office
    • A team of 4 students worked with the Refugee Law Office to research potential constitutional challenges to the treatment of detainees in the refugee system. Students also analyzed the impact of Bill C-4, which was the earlier draft of the bill to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

2010

  • Polygamy Reference
    • A team of students provided litigation support to our intervention in the Reference Re s. 293 of the Criminal Code. Students summarized expert evidence, researched legal issues and traveled to Vancouver to assist the executive director and observe the proceedings.
  • LEAF
    • Two teams of students worked on projects for the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund including research on the representation of women in political office and background research on the prostitution challenge: Bedford v. Canada.
  • Law Commission of Ontario
    • A student provided legal research on the federalism issues related to the provision of services to undocumented immigrants in Ontario.

Fall 2009

  • ARCH Disability Law Centre
    • A student conducted research to assist ARCH in providing advice to a client respecting voting rights of persons with disabilities.
  • LEAF
    • Students provided legal research in respect of the comparator group analysis in equality rights cases before the Supreme Court of Canada to assist in their motion to intervene in the case of Withler v. Canada, scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court in March 2010.
  •  Law Commission of Ontario
    • A student provided background research in respect of federalism issues impacting precarious work and vulnerable workers in the province.
  • Litigation
    • Students provided litigation support through drafting, research and creating documents for the cases in which the Centre obtained intervener standing including Conway v. The Queen, Prime Minister of Canada v. Omar Khadr, City of Vancouver v. Ward, and Alberta v. Caron (cases described here). Students travelled to Ottawa to watch counsel argue Conway v. Her Majesty the Queen and Prime Minister of Canada v. Omar Khadr.

Winter 2009

  •   Housing Rights Coalition
    • Students provided research and legal drafting support to a coalition of housing advocates who are developing a test case to challenge government policy respecting housing rights in Canada. Students provided in-depth research and analysis for specific Charter arguments, reviewed and summarized expert opinion evidence and provided an initial draft of an expert affidavit. The class hosted one of the coalition meetings at the Faculty of Law and was able to observe first-hand the discussion regarding the litigation strategy.
  •   Equality Rights for First Nations Children
    • One project has involved both litigation support and policy advocacy respecting the services provided to First Nations children both on and off reserves. A student provided research support regarding the constitutional issues behind a Canadian Human Rights Act complaint that has been filed at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
    • A strategy has also been developed for further advocacy respecting the provision of services to First Nations children who may be caught in jurisdictional wrangling between levels of government. On December 12, 2007, Jordan’s Principle was passed by Private Member’s Motion 296 in the House of Commons. Jordan’s Principle is a child-first approach to resolving jurisdictional disputes between federal and provincial/territorial governments where the provision of necessary services to First Nations children is concerned. It is named after a First Nations boy with complex medical needs who was unable to return to his home on a reserve because of the failure of governments to agree on who would provide the necessary medical support that he needed to be at home with his family.
    • Read Jordan’s Principle
    • Advocate for Jordan’s Principle
  •   Ontario Justice Education Network Jury Project
    • The Asper Centre partnered with OJEN to provide assistance in a project that focused on jury duty. Aboriginal high school students in Thunder Bay, Ontario participated in a mock jury trial, playing the role of witnesses and jury members. An Asper Centre student developed the case scenario in consultation with lawyers and judges, and then traveled north to participate in the mock trial.
    • Read about the student’s experience in her trip journal.