The Asper Centre has joined a number of civil society organizations across Canada to call for the public inquiry into the recent invocation of the Emergencies Act to have broad terms of reference and all the powers under Parts I & III of the Inquiries Act.
This is necessary to ensure a meaningful public inquiry and to hold our government accountable to all Canadians.
TORONTO, Dec. 1, 2021 – A group of Canadian children and youth are set to make history, opening the possibility that they and their peers may be able to cast a ballot in the next federal election. The 13 young people range in age between 12 to 18 years old and hail from coast to coast to coast, including Nunavut, British Colombia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec, and Nova Scotia. They have filed an application at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to challenge the voting age in Canada, and are arguing that the Canada Elections Act, which prevents citizens under the age of 18 from voting in federal elections, is in violation of Sections 3 and 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is therefore unconstitutional.
Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that all Canadian citizens have a right to vote in federal and provincial/territorial elections, and section 15 states that everyone is equal before and under the law without discrimination based on age. Additionally, the Supreme Court of Canada, in the case Frank v Canada, made it clear that any limit on Canadians’ right to vote must be clearly justified. Children represent nearly one quarter of Canada’s population, yet they remain the only disenfranchised citizens in our society.
The move comes days after Senator Marilou McPhedran introduced BILL S-201 in the Senate to lower the voting age from 18 years to 16. The bill calls for a referendum to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Regulation Adapting the Canada Elections Act.
“Youth are the future. But as it stands, we can’t vote for who gets to shape that future – and particularly in this unprecedented climate crisis, lack of youth voting rights might mean that we don’t have a future at all,” says Amelia Penney Crocker, a youth litigant from Halifax.
The court challenge is being supported by Justice for Children and Youth (JFCY) and the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights at the University of Toronto (Asper Centre).
“Decision-makers tend to cite outdated factors when denying young people access to the polls. They are the same factors historically used to deny other groups the right to vote,” say the lawyers at Justice for Children and Youth. “We have seen a continued rise in young people’s efforts to be heard — millions marching on issues that have a direct impact on their lives and the world in which they live, yet they still can’t vote.”
Already, four of Canada’s federal political parties permit those under 18 to vote for party leadership. The Liberal Party of Canada, Conservative Party of Canada, and Green Party of Canada allow members as young as 14. The federal New Democratic Party does not set out a minimum age for membership, but its provincial and territorial NDPs typically require members to be 14 or older. The Ontario NDP accepts 13-year-olds as full voting members.
“As children and youth, we deserve to speak for ourselves on the issues that matter to us and affect our lives, such as climate change and mental health. Our voices should not be ignored, as we know what actions are needed to address these issues and better the world for future generations, and we are already making change in many ways—we’re hoping that gaining the right to vote will be the next step,” says Katie Yu, a 15-year-old litigant from Iqaluit.
The fight to lower the voting age is also happening at municipal and provincial levels across the country. In June, the city of Vancouver officially endorsed lowering the voting age to 16 in municipal elections across B.C. Meanwhile, the P.E.I. provincial parliament struck down a similar attempt in April.
“Making the kinds of decisions that people make when voting is often called cold decision making – you have information and time to consider alternatives and make choices,” say the lawyers at JFCY. “We know from brain science research, from direct experience, and from international examples that people under 18 are equally capable as those over 18 of making voting decisions. We also know that including voters under age 18 improves democracy.”
According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.” The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child further requires countries to “assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child” in accordance “with the age and maturity of the child.”
Other countries and international jurisdictions that have lowered their voting age to 16 include Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Ecuador, Germany, Scotland and Wales.
Media inquiries:
Andrea Chrysanthou
Director, NATIONAL Public Relations
416-797-8194
Youth litigants in the court challenge include:
Legal Counsel:
by: Bailey Fox
On Tuesday November 9, 2021 the Asper Centre hosted a constitutional roundtable panel on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in City of Toronto et al v Ontario, 2021 SCC 34. The Asper Centre intervened in the appeal at both the Ontario Court of Appeal (OCA) and the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). The panelists for the constitutional roundtable included lawyers and academics who had participated in the appeal: Geetha Philipupillai, lawyer at Goldblatt Partners LLP and counsel for the intervener Canadian Civil Liberties Association in the SCC appeal; Professor Lorraine Weinrib, Professor Emerita at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law and a specialist in constitutional law and litigation; and Alexi Wood, of St. Lawrence Barristers LLP, counsel for the Asper Centre in its intervention at the OCA and the SCC. The panel was moderated by Lillianne Cadieux-Shaw, of St. Lawrence Barristers LLP, co-counsel for the Asper Centre in its intervention at the SCC.
Lillianne Cadieux-Shaw began the discussion with a summary of the facts and issues in the case. In short, the Supreme Court considered whether the Better Local Government Act, SO 2018, c 11 (the Act) – enacted by Ontario’s provincial government during the City of Toronto’s municipal election – which cut the number of city wards violated freedom of expression. The Court also discussed the role of unwritten constitutional principles in constitutional interpretation. In a 5-4 split decision, the SCC held that the Act did not violate candidates’ freedom of expression. A fuller discussion of the case be found on the Asper Centre’s blog here.
The panelists discussed the many important ramifications of the case for constitutional interpretation and litigation. Professor Weinrib noted that the case may revolutionize the freedom of expression guarantee because the Court de-emphasized the purposive approach to Charter interpretation. Instead, the Court underscored the Baier framework and its more technical positive/negative rights analysis. Alexi Wood noted that it would likely be more difficult to prove a breach of s2.(b) going forward, noting that in the context of preparing for freedom of expression litigation, lawyers will have to carefully frame the claim based on a positive/negative rights distinction. Geetha Philipupillai added the insight that this may lead to more claims based on the Charter’s s.15 guarantee of equality or s.2(d) right to freedom of association given that the current legal test for breach of these provisions does not distinguish between positive and negative claims.
A recurring thread throughout the Roundtable was a comparison between the majority and dissent in the decision. The dissenting opinion, penned by Justice Abella, would have applied the framework for proving a breach of s.2(b) from Irwin Toy v Quebec, [1989] 1 SCR 927 and found that the Act violated freedom of expression. As Professor Weinrib noted, the strong dissent also highlighted the radical change in the majority’s approach to the scope of s.2(b). Professor Weinrib was referring to a broader recent shift in the Courts jurisprudence that narrows the scope of Charter guarantees, based on the SCC’s concern that the existing legal tests are too broad and the test for justifying a breach under s.1 too difficult for governments to meet. During the discussion on the role of evidence in the case, Alexi Wood noted that the Majority’s choice to advance the positive/negative rights framework was facilitated by the majority’s move away from the facts of the case. Conversely, the dissenting opinion was much more fact-specific, partially because the Irwin Toy framework requires an analysis of the facts. In comparing the two sets of reasons throughout the discussion, the Panelists usefully highlighted the extent of the ideological cleavage on the Court as well as the implications of the majority’s departure from the Irwin Toy test.
The Panel also touched on the role unwritten constitutional principles and the place of municipalities in Canada’s constitutional framework. Overall, the discussion between scholars and practitioners, all involved in the case, highlighted some important implications about the case from both an academic and practical perspective. It both put the decision in broader context while helping attendees understand the implications of the case for both freedom of expression specifically and constitutional litigation more broadly going forward.
View the webcast of this Constitutional Roundtable HERE.
Bailey Fox is a Research Assistant with the Asper Centre and is currently an LLM student at the University of Toronto, Faculty of Law.
Charter: A Course is a podcast created by the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights (the Asper Centre) and hosted by the Asper Centre’s Executive Director Cheryl Milne. Charter: A Course focuses on Canadian constitutional law and litigation.
In each episode, we highlight the accomplishments of U of T Law’s faculty and alumni involved in leading constitutional cases and issues. Each episode also includes a “Practice Corner,” where we talk about the ins and outs of what it means to be a constitutional litigator.
Whether you are a law student, a lawyer, or just an interested person, we hope that you learn about an aspect of constitutional law and litigation that interests you in our podcast.
This final episode of Season 3 is a special episode, which departs from our usual style and focus in each regular episode on a different Canadian Constitutional law issue or Charter right.
The Asper Centre recently marked its 15th anniversary and to celebrate, we convened a live recording of this podcast, with the “tables turned” to start, and with several special guests.
In the first half of the episode, U of T Law’s Dean Jutta Brunnée interviews our podcast host and Asper Centre Executive Director, Cheryl Milne. And, in the second half of the podcast, the Asper Centre’s current Constitutional Litigator in Residence, Ewa Krajewska interviews the following Asper Centre alumni, who discuss their experiences with the Asper Centre and their current legal practices: Neil Abraham (JD 2016), Geetha Phillipupulai (JD 2017), Keely Kinley (JD 2021), and Ryan Deshpande (JD 2021), who is counsel in the Litigation, Extradition, and Advisory Division at the Toronto office of the Department of Justice Canada.
Listen to this episode to learn more about the breadth of work that the Asper Centre has undertaken over the past 15 years and its vision for the future.
Read more HERE and find a FULL transcript of this episode HERE.
This episode focuses on mobility rights in Canada. Mobility rights are enshrined in section 6 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and include the right to individual mobility, as well as the right to economic mobility, such as the right to pursue a livelihood in any province.
This episode will focus on individual mobility and the fundamental rights to enter, remain, move throughout, and leave Canada.
To help us unpack the meaning and extent of mobility rights under the Charter, we are joined by our guests Barbara Jackman and Paul Champ in the “Practice Corner.”
Read more HERE and find a FULL transcript of this episode HERE.
This episode focuses on Charter values, which in recent years have gained some traction in Canadian law. With the help of our guest, University of Toronto Faculty of Law Prof Richard Stacey, we examine how courts have sought to define Charter values and in what judicial context they arise. We explore when courts are obligated to consider these values and consider the challenges associated with doing so.
In this episode’s Practice Corner, we speak with Matthew Horner, counsel for the Ontario Human Rights Commission, on his experiences of practicing in the area of administrative law, where Charter values sometimes find their home.
Read more HERE and find a FULL transcript of this episode HERE.
With the help of Professor François Larocque, in this episode we explore how the Charter interacts with and protects minority language rights.
Sections 16 to 22 of the Charter provide that the settler languages of English and French are the official languages of Canada. They also explain how various public institutions are required to communicate with Canadians in the official language of their choice. Section 23 of the Charter provides that Canadian citizens and their children have the right to be educated in either English or French. In addition, sections 2(b) and 15 of the Charter may also protect language rights more broadly by guaranteeing freedom of expression and equality.
In this episode’s Practice Corner, we speak with lawyer Aria Laskin, who will provide an overview of how Indigenous minority languages interact with the Charter and Section 35 of our Constitution.
Read more HERE and find a FULL transcript of this episode HERE.
This episode focuses on section 11(e) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which provides that “any person charged with an offence has the right…not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause.”
With the help of our guests Professor Danardo Jones and Professor Jillian Rogin, in this episode, we discuss what bail is, exploring the idea of the ladder principle as discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of R v Antic, and the government’s legislative response to that case. We also discuss the current political discourse surrounding bail reform, and whether the federal Liberal government’s new bail reform legislation, Bill C-48, is compliant with the Charter. Professor Jones and Rogin of the University of Windsor Faculty of Law have both been actively involved in political and academic discourse surrounding bail in Canada, having recently appeared before the House of Commons Justice Committee to discuss the state of Canada’s bail system.
In this episode’s Practice Corner, we speak with lawyer Teodora Pasca who will take us through what it’s like in Bail Court and what happens in a typical bail hearing.
Find a FULL transcript of this episode HERE.
With the help of our distinguished guest, Professor Michael Pal, we discuss the history of the right to vote in Canada. Looking at the jurisprudence on how certain groups gained the right to vote over time, we consider how democracy has evolved in our country, and the role courts must play in protecting this fundamental freedom.
In the episode’s Practice Corner, we speak with Diego Christiansen-Barker, Khadijat Dairo and Katie Yu, three of the youth litigants who are involved in a court challenge to help young people in Canada gain the right to vote.
Read more HERE and find a Full transcript of this episode HERE.
How do Charter rights and Constitutional litigation in Canada intersect with international law like the UN Declaration of Human Rights or the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? With the help of our distinguished guest, Gib van Ert, we discuss the role of international law in Canadian constitutional litigation.
In this episode’s “Practice Corner,” lawyer and U of T Alumnus Cory Wanless discusses the ins and outs of litigating constitutional rights cases with international law components in Canadian courts.
Read more HERE and find a FULL TRANSCRIPT of this episode HERE.
With the help of our distinguished guests, Martha Jackman and Bruce Porter, in this episode we discuss whether socioeconomic rights are protected under the enumerated provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We hear about what socioeconomic rights entail – like the right to food, housing, and a living wage – and consider whether these rights confer positive obligations on the government.
In the Practice Corner (at 39:56), Jackie Esmonde joins us to discuss her experience litigating cases about socioeconomic rights on behalf of clients and as an intervenor at the Supreme Court. We also learn about Jackie’s community-driven approach to practicing law and policy writing.
Read more HERE and find a full transcript of this episode HERE.
With the help of our distinguished guests, Professor David Schneiderman and Professor Ashwini Vasanthakumar, in this episode we discuss how our section 2 Charter freedoms – the freedom of expression, the freedom of association, and the freedom of assembly – protect our right to protest. Tracing the history of the right to protest up until some of the more recent instances of protests in this country, our guests share insights about the many moral and political purposes of this right in Canada.
In the Practice Corner, Steven Barrett, Managing Partner of Goldblatt Partners LLP, discusses the freedoms of expression, association, and assembly in the labour law context. We hear about the jurisprudence leading up to the Supreme Court’s recognition of a constitutional right to strike and discuss how the Charter is litigated in employment and labour disputes. We also hear more about Bill 28 and the provincial government’s use of the notwithstanding clause to limit the right to strike.
Read more HERE and find a full transcript of this episode HERE.
In 1982, disability was included as an enumerated ground of discrimination under Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since then, disability rights advocates have pursued constitutional litigation on a range of issues. This podcast episode examines the successes and remaining challenges in having disability rights recognized and protected under the Charter.
Our esteemed guests in this podcast episode are David Lepofsky and Anita Szigeti, two lawyers specialized in disability rights. Our guests discuss, amongst other issues, how disability came to be an enumerated ground under section 15 of the Charter; some of the seminal Supreme Court of Canada cases that dealt with disability rights under the Charter; how individuals living with a mental disability either alone or in combination with a physical disability experience discrimination; how section 7 of the Charter interplays with respect to discrimination claims that normally fit within section 15 Charter claims; and, the future of disability rights under the Charter.
In the “Practice Corner” we speak with constitutional litigator Stephen Aylward, about his experiences as a constitutional litigator while living with a disability, and his thoughts on ways to remove existing barriers within the legal profession to make the practice of law more accessible.
Read more HERE and find a full transcript of this episode HERE.
This episode focuses on section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, otherwise known as the ‘notwithstanding clause’. Recognized as a distinctive Canadian legal invention, the notwithstanding clause creates a legislative tool that permits federal, provincial or territorial legislatures to declare an act or provision of an act to operate notwithstanding sections 2 and 7 to 15 of the Charter.
With the help of our distinguished guest Professor Emerita Lorraine Weinrib we discuss section 33’s unique role within Canada’s constitutional democracy, its development, its operation, the political implications of it thus far, and the existing jurisprudence on its application.
In our “Practice Corner”, we will be speaking to two lawyers, Gregory Bordan and Marion Sandilands, who are involved in the legal challenge against the invocation of the notwithstanding clause in Quebec’s Bill 21, An Act respecting the laicity of the State.
Read more HERE and find a full transcript of this episode HERE.
This episode focuses on section 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states that notwithstanding anything in the Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.
With the help of our distinguished guest Professor Kerri Froc we trace the history of Section 28 and its questionable usage in jurisprudence, before discussing how a case currently making its way to the Quebec Court of Appeal may provide an opportunity for Section 28 to truly shine for the first time.
In the Practice Corner, Professor Martha Jackman tells us about Feminist Law Reform 101, a free online course designed to provide the tools to teach and inspire a new generation of feminist legal advocates like the ones who brought Section 28 into being.
Read more HERE and find a full transcript of the episode HERE
Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
With the help of our distinguished guests, constitutional litigators Mary Eberts and Jonathan Rudin (author of Indigenous People and the Criminal Justice System: A Practitioner’s Handbook) we trace the history of Section 15 and its development in Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, as well as its use in furthering the efforts to realize substantive equality for Indigenous peoples in Canada, in particular in the criminal justice system.
Mary and Jonathan also share their thoughts about the value of interveners in Charter litigation in Canada.
Read more HERE and find a full transcript of this episode HERE.
Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that every person has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. This episode focuses on s. 7 of the Charter, climate change litigation and constitutional remedies in these cases.
In this episode, we speak with lawyer and former Constitutional Litigator-in-Residence at the Asper Centre, Nader Hasan about the meaning and purpose of section 7 in the context of climate change and government action/inaction, and as it relates to protecting the environment for future generations. Nader is legal counsel for the applicants in the Mathur v Ontario climate change litigation (see case link below), which he discusses in this episode.
In this episode’s “Practice Corner”, we speak with University of Toronto Faculty of Law Professor Kent Roach about constitutional remedies as a core aspect of charter litigation. Kent is the author of Constitutional Remedies in Canada (Carswell, 2013) and has recently published an article on judicial remedies in climate change litigation internationally.
Read more HERE and find a full transcript of Episode 5 HERE.
This episode focuses on freedom of religion and the role of interveners in landmark cases concerning religious freedom.
Section 2 of the Charter sets out that everyone has four fundamental freedoms, one of which is freedom of conscience and religion in clause 2(a). In this episode, we learn about the different ways in which the court has viewed freedom of religion in the past and the implications of those different views, from University of Calgary Professor Howard Kislowicz. We also hear from Howie about the extent to which interveners can be said to have improved the quality of court decisions, concerning freedom of religion, and the extent to which interveners can be said to have promoted the legitimacy and acceptability of those decisions.
In this episode’s Practice Corner, we talk about the process and practice of intervening in appeals at the Supreme Court of Canada with lawyer, Adriel Weaver.
Read more HERE and find a full transcript of this episode HERE.
Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides a list of rights for persons charged with a crime. These include, but are not limited to, the right to be tried within a reasonable period of time, under section 11(b), the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty under section 11d, and the right to the benefit of a trial by jury, where the maximum penalty for the offense is imprisonment for five years, or even more severe punishment, under section 11(f).
In this episode we speak with Kent Roach, Professor of Law at the University of Toronto and lawyer Christa Big Canoe, Legal Director of Aboriginal Legal Services in Toronto, about jury fairness in Canada, the impact of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in R v Chouhan and the way in which the court’s current understanding of jury selection informs the right to a jury that is representative of the community. The conversation also turns to equality rights, jury representation, and the experiences of indigenous people when it comes to juries.
Lastly, in this episode’s “Practice Corner” we speak with lawyer Janani Shanmuganathan about some of the practicalities of jury selection from the perspective of a criminal defense lawyer.
Read more HERE and find a full transcript of this episode HERE.
This episode focuses on various Charter rights in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Section 6 (1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms confers the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada upon every citizen of Canada. Section 6(2) provides citizens and permanent residents with the right to move and take up residence and to pursue a livelihood in any province. Over the past year and a half, some provinces, including Ontario, have restricted movement across provincial borders. Other legal responses, or lack of responses, from government might also implicate section 7 rights to life, liberty and security of the person, while vaccine mandates raise questions about equality rights under section 15 or freedom of conscience and religion under section 2(a); and arguments have been made that restrictions on gathering affect those rights as well as the right to assembly under section 2(c) or association under 2(d).
We’ll hear about the complicated relationship between our Charter and the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic from Abby Deshman and Nathalie des Rosiers. We’ll also hear a bit more about a topic we covered in our first episode: section 1 of the Charter. Particularly, whether the Oakes test is too strict in the context of an emergency such as the COVID-19 pandemic. To close things off, in our “Practice Corner,” we’ll hear from two recent U of T law graduates, Geri Angelova and Hana Awwad, regarding their experience participating in the law school’s Grand Moot earlier this year, which was on the topic of the constitutionality of mandatory vaccinations.
Read more here and find a full transcript of Episode 2 here.
In this episode, we begin our exploration of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms with a conversation about section 1, which sets out that the rights in the Charter are subject to limits, or as the section says, “reasonable limits that are demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.” We are privileged to speak with scholar and U of T alumnus Professor Jacob Weinrib. During our “Practice Corner,” we speak with constitutional litigator and U of T Law alumnus Padraic Ryan.
Read more here and find a full transcript of Episode 1 here.
In a deeply divided 5 to 4 decision released today, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the Better Local Government Act, 2018 as constitutional. This legislation was enacted by the newly elected Ford government in 2018, midway through an ongoing municipal election. The legislation reduced the number of wards of Toronto City Council from 47 wards to 25 wards.
A number of individuals, including candidates in the 47-ward election, challenged the legislation, as did the City of Toronto. It was argued that cancelling a democratic election more than halfway through the election period breached the Charter’s guarantee of freedom of expression, without justification. The challenge was successful at Divisional Court but failed at the Court of Appeal. The individual litigants dropped out of the litigation at this point and the City of Toronto appealed to the SCC.
The David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights, represented by Alexi Wood of St. Lawrence Barristers LLP, intervened on the issue of freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter.
The Asper Centre is disappointed in the majority ruling in the SCC. According to Alexi Wood, “The majority decision fails to recognize the importance of electoral expression and has the potential to destabilize other types of expression in the future.”
The Asper Centre prefers the analysis set out in Justice Abella’s dissent, which held that the Act unconstitutionally interfered with the political dialogue between candidates and voters. The legislation was an unprecedented intervention midway through the election period, “destabilizing the foundations of the electoral process and interfering with the ability of candidates and voters to engage in meaningful political discourse during the period leading up to voting day,” according to the dissenting opinion. Justice Abella, quoting from the Asper Centre’s legal arguments, specifically noted how different aspects of the election period require protection: “All exercises of expression, at each and every stage of the electoral process – not only the final act of voting – must receive consistent and robust Charter protection” (paragraph 130).
Cheryl Milne, Executive Director of the Asper Centre, notes, “The majority and dissenting opinions represent very different views of our constitution with the majority taking a much narrower interpretation of freedom of expression, characterising the claim as a positive rights claim for an expressive platform and thus not protected by the Charter.”
Lorraine Weinrib, professor emerita at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law and a specialist in constitutional law and litigation, notes that the majority judgment embodies some novel features: “It does not emphasize the importance of the guarantee of the fundamental freedom of expression in protecting the full range of public participation in the vital context of the actual election period. It does not emphasize the importance of democratic deliberation and representation at the municipal level where, as has been so clear during the covid pandemic, local government carries out a distinctive and crucial role in making policy decisions, setting priorities, and providing services in a densely populated, exceptionally diverse context.”
In stressing the importance of the text of the Charter, the majority undermined the well-established understanding that constitutional principles provide fidelity to the Charter’s basic value structure in a changing world. The contrasting factual summaries in the reasoning in this case also makes clear that we need new rules for Charter litigation so that the litigants, whose personal accounts of the actual impact of complicated government legislation on their lives and the lives of their communities, can fully participate in the adjudication of their claims through the full litigation process.
For further information:
Alexi Wood, Counsel
St. Lawrence Barristers LLP
Direct: 647 245 8283 / alexi.wood@stlbarristers.ca
Lillianne Cadieux-Shaw, Co-Counsel
St. Lawrence Barristers LLP
Direct: 647 245 3122 / lil.cadieux.shaw@stlbarristers.ca
Professor Lorraine Weinrib, Professor Emerita
University of Toronto, Faculty of Law
l.weinrib@utoronto.ca
Cheryl Milne, Executive Director
David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights
cheryl.milne@utoronto.ca