Charter

Encampments and the Charter Workshop: Charter Challenges, Systemic Barriers, and Indigenous Legal Perspectives

Posted on by Tal Schreier

by Aurora Lawrence and Jay Wai

On February 28, 2025, the Centre for Constitutional Studies at the University of Alberta and the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights co-hosted a “Encampments and the Charter” workshop in Edmonton. The event brought together legal scholars and advocates to examine the legal, social, and political dimensions of housing encampments (also called homeless encampments and tent cities) in Canada.

As encampments continue to grow in response to the housing crisis, they have faced a range of governmental responses—many of which are politically and legally contentious.  The workshop explored both procedural and substantive legal issues, focusing on how provincial and municipal governments regulate encampments, and how such regulation is being challenged in court. Discussions centered on the application, advantages, and limitations of Charter rights challenges with respect to encampments, Indigenous legal traditions, and legal barriers to advocacy.  In particular, participants discussed encampments as spaces of harm reduction and mutual aid.

Workshop presenters included Margot Young, Alexandra Flynn, Anna Lund, Martha Jackman, Estair van Wagner, Heidi Kiiwetinepinesiik Stark, Avnish Nanda, Chris Wiebe, Renee Vaugeois, Gerard Kennedy,  Renée McBeth and Shaun Fluker. This blog post synthesizes the major points raised in the workshop.

Charter application in housing encampment litigation

At the heart of legal struggles between encampment residents and municipalities is the question of how the Charter applies and whether it adequately protects unhoused individuals from forced evictions, restrictive bylaws, and criminalization.  One key constitutional issue raised at the workshop was how section 7 of the Charter has been interpreted in ways that limit government obligations toward unhoused individuals. Martha Jackman, a professor emerita of law at the University of Ottawa, examined how courts have treated section 7 as a negative right by focusing on state non-interference rather than recognizing a positive right to housing.

Jackman critiqued cases like Victoria (City) v Adams, which are often viewed as breakthroughs in the fight for encampment rights. By contrast, Jackman argued that they demonstrate the limitations of how courts engage with section 7 Charter claims. In Adams, the Supreme Court of British Columbia held that the municipality could not enforce a by-law that prohibited overnight sheltering in parks when there was inadequate shelter space.[1] This decision was subsequently upheld on appeal.[2] Jackman explained that the claimants in Adams were not arguing for a conditional right to remain in encampments only when there was insufficient shelter space. Instead, they raised the lack of shelter options as just one example of the broader and systemic violations of section 7—violations that also stem from inadequate social assistance, a lack of social services, and the absence of long-term housing. Yet the Court reframed their claim, making the right to remain in an encampment contingent on the availability of shelter spaces. By doing so, the structural argument was reduced into a narrow, site-specific right. Jackman argued that this judicial reframing reflects a broader failure of courts, not advocates.

Margot Young, a professor at Allard Law, described encampment residents as “constitutional castaways”, a term coined by former Chief Justice McLachlin to highlight judicial blindness to systemic inequalities faced by the impoverished.[3] Drawing from her observations at the CRAB Park encampment in Vancouver, Young recounted unconstitutional searches of tents, seizure of belongings, and intimidation by park rangers. This treatment of encampment residents appeared irreconcilable with the decision in Bamberger v Vancouver (Board of Parks and Recreation), which emphasized the need for participation and notice in administrative actions—protections that are routinely ignored on the ground.[4] Young noted that encampment residents face a litany of Charter violations, highlighting the need to recognize not just intersectionality within individual identity but also within the Charter itself. She emphasized that the rights engaged, such as sections 2(d), 7, 8, 12, and 15, should not be considered in isolation. Instead, courts must allow the values recognized in one right to inform and strengthen others, reinforcing Jackman’s call for reading section 7 through a section 15 lens to address systemic inequality.

Jackman referenced G. (J.) v. New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) to outline a path forward for judicial decisions. In G. (J.), Chief Justice Lamer held that decisions infringing section 7 must provide affected individuals with meaningful participation.[5] Similarly, Jackman argued that encampment residents must have a voice in legal processes that impact their rights. She further advocated for interpreting section 7 through a section 15 lens to ensure that remedies address systemic human rights violations rather than offering temporary solutions grounded in negative section 7 rights.

When the personal belongings of precariously housed people are seized by public or private officials, there are rarely clear processes for recovering them. Alexandra Flynn, Director of the Housing Research Collaborative and Associate Professor at UBC’s Allard School of Law discussed litigating claims for property rights as one potential method for bolstering future housing encampment push back against unlawful state actions.  This is an area where there is currently little jurisprudence. Flynn suggested lack of effective remedies, and legal and procedural barriers that limit access to remedies, as reasons for this scarcity. Flynn emphasized that it is important to continue using all the available tools, including tribunals and small claims courts, when seeking remedies.

Procedural and systemic barriers

Building on these critiques of judicial limitations in encampment cases, litigator Avnish Nanda and Professor Anna Lund of the University of Alberta discussed the procedural and legal barriers they faced in their recent litigation work around homeless encampments in Edmonton and how those compare to the barriers Nanda has encountered in litigation over harm reduction programs. Referencing Margot Young’s essay, “Sleeping Rough and Shooting Up: Taking British Columbia’s Urban Justice Issues to Court,” they characterized litigation on homeless encampments and harm reduction programs as part of a broader movement for social justice, which Young defines as a “call for the alleviation of social and political exclusion, and the reduction of inequalities as a matter of justice, not merely charity, and as a matter of state, not individual, responsibility.”[6]

Nanda had worked on a line of cases where he sought interlocutory injunctions to stop legislation that reduced or obstructed access to government supports and harm reduction programs. The first of these cases, AC and JF v Alberta, laid the foundation for his later work and clarified the test for injunctive relief.[7] In 2020, Alberta lowered the maximum age eligibility of its Support Financial Assistance program for youth who were transitioning out of the child welfare system. Nanda challenged the amended legislation on the grounds that it violated section 7 of the Charter and sought an injunction to suspend the amendment. Compelled by the plaintiffs’ narratives, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench (ABQB) granted the injunction.[8] While the injunction was overturned on appeal, the Alberta Court of Appeal affirmed the traditional test for injunctive relief established in RJR-MacDonald, rejecting a more stringent test proposed in Alberta Union of Provincial Employees v Alberta where the government would benefit from a presumption that its legislation was constitutional.[9]

Encampment litigation across Canada relies on injunctions. In provinces such as British Columbia, municipalities must seek injunctions to remove encampments; conversely, in Alberta, the onus is on encampment residents to apply for injunctions to stop evictions. AC and JF was a significant decision because a more stringent test would make this prohibitively difficult for encampment residents to stop evictions. However, the workshop participants acknowledged Stepan Wood’s critique that the less stringent traditional test frequently allowed BC municipalities to obtain injunctions against encampments, prompting removals and evictions.[10]

The ABQB’s decision in AC and JF also revealed a litigation strategy—using narrative to bridge the gaps in the law. In later cases, Nanda again sought injunctive relief against legislation that shut down access to opioid treatment programs and supervised consumption sites, arguing breaches of sections 7, 12, and 15 of the Charter.[11] Not all the injunction applications succeeded, but the courts were willing to engage with the Charter claims. The parallels between encampment and harm reduction litigation make these cases valuable to draw from.

The issue of legal standing poses another barrier to encampment litigation. Renee Vaugeois and Chris Wiebe, co-founder and co-counsel for the Coalition of Justice and Human Rights respectively, reflected on their recent Charter challenge in Alberta which was struck down on standing. The Coalition applied for an interlocutory injunction using public interest standing to stop the City of Edmonton from evicting encampments. The City moved to strike the claim by challenging the Coalition’s request for public interest standing, and the City succeeded. The Alberta Court of King’s Bench refused to grant the Coalition public interest standing on the grounds that they did not have a “real stake or genuine interest” in the issue and that its litigation was not “a reasonable and effective means to bring the case to court” .[12]

Wiebe explained that the Coalition resorted to using public interest standing because the stigma of living in encampments and the frequent displacement of residents made it difficult to find someone who could act as a direct applicant. Moreover, the Coalition was concerned that courts would only consider the harm individual applicants were facing and disregard the harm the overall community would experience if evicted.[13]

Assistant Professor Gerard Kennedy from the University of Alberta examined recent court decisions dealing with public interest standing and noted that Alberta disproportionately denies standing claims. Judges seemed uncomfortable with granting public interest standing and would later dismiss claims on the merits, although these are separate processes. Courts tended to favour individual applicants and factual records that raise narrow issues to avoid any unintended consequences of granting public interest standing. However, this presented a significant issue for precarious populations where stigma and vulnerability prevent individuals from coming forward as direct standing applicants, as was the case in Coalition. Regardless, an individual claimant may not effectively be able to represent the interests of the community.

The workshop participants also acknowledged the adverse effects of litigation on encampments and their homeless population. Vaugeois noted that the City of Edmonton had increased encampment evictions after the Coalition decision and disbanded the Social Development Committee which brought different organizations together to talk strategically about dealing with shelter issues.

Indigenous legal perspectives

Indigenous people have been disproportionately affected by state actions to evict encampments, shut down harm reduction programs, and penalize homelessness through vagrancy bylaws. The fact that they are overrepresented in the homeless population may also trigger a section 15 Charter claim.

While the Charter’s limitations in protecting encampment residents highlight systemic failures, it is crucial to consider how Indigenous legal traditions offer alternative frameworks for addressing housing and community rights. Heidi Kiiwetinepinesiik Stark, Associate Professor at the University of Victoria, discussed how Anishinaabe law highlights collective responsibility of care which contrasts with settler individualism. The Indigenous legal perspective aligns with the understanding that unhoused individuals are part of a larger community and deserve care and support. By centering relational ontologies of care, policy decisions can better reflect our shared responsibility to one another.

Recognizing Indigenous law and jurisdiction can be especially important when encampments are situated on Indigenous land. Estair van Wagner, Associate Professor at the University of Victoria, and Stark highlighted the Beacon Hill Park Trust (Re) case where the Supreme Court of British Columbia had an opportunity to consider Indigenous jurisdiction and failed to do so.[14] Located on Lekwungen territory, Beacon Hill Park was granted to the City of Victoria in 1882 to be held in trust without regard to Lekwungen title.[15] During COVID-19, encampments grew, prompting city enforcement of prohibitions on daytime sheltering within the park. The Court ruled that encampments violated conditions of the park’s trust, focusing on property management rather than obligations to unhoused individuals or Indigenous governance.[16] The Songhees and Esquimalt Nations’ intervener status in the case was limited, excluding broader discussions of Indigenous jurisdiction and title.[17]

Notably, van Wagner emphasized how Beacon Hill Park was framed around private law, narrowing the scope of what was legally relevant. The Friends of Beacon Hill Park Society, a small non-Indigenous nonprofit, played a key role in this framing by arguing that encampments violated the trust’s terms.[18] Their position, which centered on preserving the park for public enjoyment, mobilized private law to exclude discussions of Indigenous jurisdiction, human rights, and obligations to unhoused individuals. Instead of recognizing the complex relationships between the land, Indigenous governance, and encampment residents, the Court deferred to a rigid interpretation of the trust. This case illustrates how legal frameworks continue to prioritize settler interests while limiting space for Indigenous law and authority.

Looking Ahead

The “Encampments and the Charter” workshop represented an important step in bringing together advocates and academics to address the constitutional law and systemic barriers housing encampment residents face. More conversations of this kind are needed to develop legal strategies that challenge the systemic inequalities. Indigenous law and legal traditions, which emphasize collective responsibility and care, offer a crucial alternative to the individualistic framework of the Charter. Centering these perspectives could help reshape legal approaches to housing and community rights in a more just and equitable way.

Aurora Lawrence and Jay Wai are 1L JD Candidates at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law and are members of the Asper Centre Encampments and the Charter working group

[1] 2008 BCSC 1363.

[2] Victoria (City) v Adams, 2009 BCCA 563 [Adams].

[3] R v Prosper, 1994 CanLII 65 (SCC), [1994] 3 SCR 236 at 302.

[4] 2022 BCSC 49 at paras 64, 69.

[5] ​​See 1999 CanLII 653 (SCC), [1999] 3 SCR 46 at para 81.

[6] Margot Young, “Sleeping Rough and Shooting Up: Taking British Columbia’s Urban Justice Issues to Court” in Martha Jackman & Bruce Porter, eds, Advancing Social Rights in Canada (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2014) 413 at 439.

[7] AC and JF v Alberta, 2021 ABCA 24 [AC and JF].

[8] AC and JF v Alberta (19 March 2020), Edmonton, ABQB 2003 04825 (interlocutory judgment transcript).

[9] Alberta Union of Provincial Employees v Alberta, 2019 ABCA 320.

[10] Stepan Wood, “Reconsidering the Test for Interlocutory Injunctions Affecting Homeless Encampments: A critical assessment of BC case law”  (2024) 61:1 OHLJ  161.

[11] Tam v Alberta, 2021 ABQB 156; Moms Stop the Harm Society v Alberta, 2022 ABQB 24; Black v Alberta, 2023 ABKB 123.

[12] Coalition for Justice and Human Rights Ltd v Edmonton (City), 2024 ABKB 26 [Coalition].

[13] Poff v City of Hamilton, 2021 ONSC 7224 at para 137.

[14] 2022 BCSC 284 [Beacon Hill Park].

[15] Ibid at para 19.

[16] Ibid at para 134.

[17] British Columbia v Friends of Beacon Hill Park, 2022 BCCA 383 at para 65.

[18] Ibid at paras 48–49.

LEAF and the Asper Centre welcome the Ontario Court of Appeal’s Decision in R. v. Sharma

Posted on by Student

 

A majority of the Ontario Court of Appeal has struck down Criminal Code provisions which made conditional sentences unavailable for certain offences. The ruling comes in response to Cheyenne Sharma’s constitutional challenge to these provisions, and explicitly acknowledges and draws on the arguments and information provided by LEAF and the Asper Centre in their joint intervention.

Ms. Sharma – a young Indigenous woman, an intergenerational residential school survivor, and a single mother – faced financial hardship and potential eviction for her and her young daughter. She acted as a drug courier, importing 2 kg of cocaine into Canada, and then pleaded guilty to importing drugs.

As an Indigenous person, Ms. Sharma is entitled to the use of the Gladue framework. The Gladue framework is an individualized approach to sentencing that requires judges to consider the impact of systemic factors such as intergenerational trauma of residential schools and the harms of colonial oppression, and to consider alternatives to incarceration when sentencing Indigenous offenders. These options include conditional sentences, a community-based alternative to a custodial sentence.

However, 2012 amendments to the Criminal Code made conditional sentences unavailable for offences with a maximum penalty of 14 years or life in prison, and for offences involving the import, export, trafficking, or production of drugs, with a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. As a result, Ms. Sharma was not eligible for a conditional sentence. Ms. Sharma argued that the provisions violated her rights under section 15 of the Charter, but the trial judge did not accept these arguments and imposed a custodial sentence.

LEAF and the Asper Centre intervened before the Ontario Court of Appeal to argue that the constitutionality of the provisions needed to be assessed in the context of systemic discrimination against Indigenous people, especially Indigenous women, in the administration of criminal justice.

This discrimination is clearly evident in the overwhelming overincarceration of Indigenous people, particularly Indigenous women, in Canada. In 2017/2018, Indigenous persons represented approximately four percent of the adult population in Canada, but accounted for 30 percent of admissions to provincial or territorial custody, and 28 percent of admissions to federal custody. The crisis of overincarceration has worsened over time. Between 2007/2008 and 2017/2018, for example, the number of admissions of Indigenous women to provincial/territorial custody increased by 66 percent.

The majority’s decision means that conditional sentences will now be an available option for trial judges to consider in sentencing Indigenous offenders for a wide variety of offences, provided other requirements are also met (including that the sentence is less than two years, and serving the sentence in the community will not endanger the community).

Ms. Sharma will not get to see the direct benefit of her victory, having already served her jail sentence before the appeal. The decision, however, will help to ensure that, moving forward, Indigenous offenders receive the benefit of the different approach to sentencing enshrined in the Gladue framework. It will also serve as a small step towards reducing the overincarceration of Indigenous people and in particular Indigenous women.

The majority’s decision represents an important articulation of substantive equality under section 15 of the Charter. Section 15, despite its potential for advancing equality, remains complex and under-applied. The majority’s analysis provides a clear example of how to apply section 15 where an applicant argues that a law appearing neutral on its face is discriminatory in its effect – and illustrates the potential of section 15 to be used as tool for addressing the overincarceration of Indigenous people, and Indigenous women in particular.

“We are extremely pleased with the decision in R. v. Sharma,” said Cheryl Milne, Executive Director of the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights. “The Court’s decision affirms our position that substantive equality requires a different approach to criminal justice for Indigenous people. Allowing judges to consider conditional sentences in these cases should help contribute, incrementally, to reducing the overincarceration of Indigenous people.”

“This decision is a breakthrough in how courts think about section 15 of the Charter and criminal law, and affirms the substantive equality rights of Indigenous women in the criminal justice context.” said Megan Stephens, Executive Director and General Counsel of LEAF. “The majority decision is remarkable for both its analytical rigor and its compassion concerning the devastating consequences of the overincarceration of Indigenous women, and the ongoing intergenerational harms to Indigenous women caused by colonialism, sexism, and racism.”

Case Committee and Counsel

LEAF and the Asper Centre’s arguments were informed and supported by a case committee composed of academics and practitioners with expertise in the relevant issues. The committee members for this intervention are (in alphabetical order): Emma Cunliffe (Allard School of Law, University of British Columbia), Gillian Balfour (Department of Sociology, Trent University), Martha Shaffer (University of Toronto Faculty of Law), Mary Eberts OC, Naiomi Metallic (Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University), Rakhi Ruparelia (Faculty of Law – Common Law Section, University of Ottawa), and Renée Pelletier (Olthius Kleer Townshend LLP).

We are grateful to pro bono counsel Adriel Weaver and Jessica Orkin of Goldblatt Partners LLP, who acted for LEAF and the Asper Centre in this important case.

About Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF)

The Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) works to advance the substantive equality rights of women and girls through litigation, law reform, and public education. Since 1985, we have intervened in landmark cases that have advanced equality in Canada—helping to prevent violence, eliminate discrimination in the workplace, provide better maternity benefits, ensure a right to pay equity, and allow access to reproductive freedoms.

To support our work to protect the equality rights of women and girls, please consider donating today.

About David Asper Centre

The David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights is devoted to realizing constitutional rights through advocacy, research and education. The Centre aims to play a vital role in articulating Canada’s constitutional vision to the broader world. The cornerstone of the Centre is a legal clinic that brings together students, faculty and members of the bar to work on significant constitutional cases and advocacy initiatives. The Centre was established through a generous gift from U of T law alumnus David Asper (LLM ’07). For more information please visit www.aspercentre.ca.

For media inquiries, contact:

Megan Stephens, Executive Director & General Counsel
Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF)
T: 416-317-4440
E: m.stephens@leaf.ca

Cheryl Milne, Director
The David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights
T: 416-540-7619
E: cheryl.milne@utoronto.ca

Young Climate Activists Attempt to Hold Province Accountable for Inadequate Emissions Target

Posted on by Student

By Amy Chen

In late 2019, Ecojustice and Stockwoods LLP initiated a constitutional challenge (“the Application”) against Ontario’s greenhouse gas reduction target on behalf of seven young climate activists (the “Applicants”). Ontario responded with a motion to strike. Mathur et al v Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario was heard via teleconference on July 13, 2020, with judgment reserved.  The Applicants were represented by Nader Hasan, the Asper Centre’s upcoming constitutional litigator-in-residence, and Justin Safayeni.

Background

In 2018, the Ford provincial government passed the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act (“CTCA”), repealing the Climate Change Mitigation and Low-Carbon Economy Act (“old Climate Change Act”). Under s. 3(1) of the CTCA, the provincial government “shall establish targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in Ontario and may revise the targets from time to time”. The new target is set out in the province’s new Environmental Plan: “Ontario will reduce its emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030”.  In comparison, the old target (when calibrated) was to reduce the emissions by about 45%.

The public interest Applicants (Sophia Mathur, Zoe Keary-Matzner, Shaelyn Wabegijig, Shelby Gagnon, Alex Neufeldt, Madison Dyck, Beze Gray) in the present case are climate activists between the ages of 13 and 24. The Applicants argue that the new target, as well as the repeal of the old Climate Change Act, violates the rights of Ontario youth and future generations under ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter. Ontario is exacerbating the current climate emergency and threatening the lives of all Ontarians by weakening the province’s target. Canada has an international obligation, under the Paris Agreement, to limit global warming to 1.5 oC above pre-industrial levels and prevent the effects of climate change from becoming irreversible. Ontario’s greenhouse gas emission levels will be too high to meet this obligation even if the target is fulfilled, making the target arbitrary and irrational. The Applicants seek mandatory orders requiring Ontario to set a “science-based” greenhouse gas reduction target for 2030 and to revise its climate action plan accordingly.

Summary of Motion Hearing

The issue of the motion was whether the Application should be struck for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.  The hearing primarily revolved around three issues: (1) whether the Application is justiciable, (2) whether the claims within the Application are “inherently speculative in nature”, and (3) whether the Application requires the recognition of positive rights, and if so, whether the Application can be struck on that basis.

(1) Whether the Application is Justiciable

Ontario’s first argument was that the Application is non-justiciable, or that the courts do not have the institutional capacity or legitimacy to adjudicate on this case. Ontario relied on Tanudjaja v Attorney General of Canada, a Charter challenge against the “social conditions” created by the federal and provincial governments that perpetuate homelessness and inadequate housing. The Ontario Court of Appeal found the case to be non-justiciable because there was “no judicially discoverable and manageable standard for assessing… whether [the governments’] housing policy is adequate”. Ontario argued that this Application, like Tanudjaja, asks the Court to assess the soundness of public policy, which is beyond its institutional capacity. The target is a piece of public policy that outlines Ontario’s “aspirations” regarding climate action, not a legally binding commitment.  The Applicants are asking Ontario to establish a “science-based” target that would allow for a “stable climate system”; these are not concrete, legal parameters that could be judicially reviewed.

The Applicants argue that the target is a policy made in pursuant to a statutory mandate (the CTCA), which falls under the definition of “law” for the purposes of a Charter challenge (Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority v. Canadian Federation of Students). The Applicants are challenging actual laws, not merely “social conditions”, and seeking relief defined by scientifically knowable standards. These standards can be judicially determined and have been judicially determined by courts in international jurisdictions. Neither complexity nor novelty can justify striking the claim.

(2) Whether the Application is “Inherently Speculative In Nature”

Section 7 Charter claims cannot be premised on speculations about the effects of government action (Operation Dismantle v. The Queen).  Ontario’s second argument was that the Applicants’ section 7 claims are speculative and incapable of being proven – the claims assume that the target determines actual emissions, that the target will not change, and that federal policy will not have an effect on Ontario’s emissions.

The Applicants argue that they fully intend to prove their claims based on expert evidence, and whether they would be successful in doing so should be determined at a hearing on its merits. As per Bedford v Canada and Canada v PHS Community Services Society, Charter applicants only have to establish a “real and substantial connection” between the impugned government conduct and the alleged harm. The Applicants are allowed to seek relief for potential future harms even if the government is not the dominant cause of these future harms.

(3)The Issue of Positive Rights

Ontario’s final arguments concerned the government’s positive obligations. First, Ontario does not have any constitutional obligations to keep the old Climate Change Act. Unless there was a constitutional obligation to enact the old legislation, the Ontario legislature is free to repeal and replace it (Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic v. Canada). Second, the Applicant is asking Ontario to take positive steps to combat the adverse effects of climate change, even though neither ss. 15 or 7 of the Charter gives individuals positive rights. Although Gosselin v. Québec left open the possibility that there may be “special circumstances” where positive rights could be recognized, many appellate cases have declined to recognize these positive rights. The lower courts are therefore bound by precedent until the Supreme Court of Canada changes the law (Tanudjaja, trial decision).

The Applicants argue that this case does not require the recognition of positive rights. This case is not merely challenging the repeal of legislation or government inaction, but directly challenging government action. The Ontario government regulates, authorizes, and incentivizes dangerous levels of greenhouse gas emissions through the CTCA and the target. The law is clear that this authorization and regulation is enough to constitute a reasonable cause of action (Dixon v. Director, Ministry of the Environment). The Applicants do not seek a declaration regarding HOW the target is to be achieved, and hence are not demanding any positive obligations from the government. They are merely demanding that the target and the climate action plan be constitutionally compliant.  Even if this Application requires the recognition of positive rights, many courts have relied on Gosselin to deny motions to strike. To strike the claim at this stage would freeze section 7 rights in a manner that is contrary to the “living tree” constitutional interpretive principle.

What Next?

The outcome of this motion will serve as a critical turning point in the fight for climate justice by answering one key question:  Can the provincial government be held legally accountable for its inadequate climate action plan? In an interview with the Asper Centre, Mr. Hasan posited that there could be positive outcomes for climate justice whether the claim is struck or not. If the claim is struck, the Applicants would likely appeal the decision; such an outcome would give the appellate courts an opportunity to consider the complex legal issues involved and set a precedent for climate change litigation in Canada. If the claim proceeds, the Applicants would be permitted to present their evidentiary record. A judge would hear “striking and chilling” testimonies regarding the catastrophic effects of climate change and the fact that these effects will become irreversible if drastic action is not taken. As stated by Mr. Hasan: “I feel quite confident that, if we ever get the evidentiary record in front of a judge, the judges are going to want to do the right thing.”

Additional arguments were raised in the parties’ written submissions. Ontario’s arguments are stated in their notice of motion to strike. The Applicant’s arguments can be found in their factum and on their website.

For more information regarding our governments’ ss. 7 and 15 constitutional obligations to address  climate change, see the Asper Centre’s UTEA working group publication- “Give our Children A Future: The Moral and Legal Obligations of the Government of Canada to Act on Climate Change”.

Amy (Jun) Chen is a 1L JD Candidate at the Faculty of Law and is the Asper Centre’s current summer Research Assistant.

What Does Vavilov Mean for Constitutional Issues in Administrative Law?

Posted on by Tal Schreier

by Cheryl Milne

It seems like a lifetime ago that I last attended an in-person legal conference. It was only March 9th, and while the specter of COVID-19 was present (there were hand sanitizer dispensers at the elevator banks and we all used them), social distancing was not yet a phrase on everyone’s tongue as we sat shoulder to shoulder in the downtown conference facility. The conference hosted by Osgoode Hall Law School was a day-long examination of the Supreme Court of Canada’s long-awaited administrative law decision, Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65. I was asked to discuss its implications for constitutional issues.

The short answer is that the decision poses more questions than answers. The long version is what I think can be covered in a blog post rather than an academic paper. Hence, my attempt, from the relatively safe confines of my kitchen, to summarize what I said on March 9th and what I have thought about it since. I should add that I was joined on this two-person panel by Senwung Luk of OKT LLP, who addressed the implications for the duty to consult and accommodate, and whose succinct answer to that question was, “utter chaos.”

For those of you who were not hanging on the edge of your seats for the duration of 2019 awaiting the Court’s pronouncement on the standard of review in administrative law, the appeal involved the judicial review of the decision of the Registrar of Citizenship to cancel the Canadian citizenship of the Canadian-born son of parents later revealed to be Russian spies – their story served as inspiration for the television series, The Americans. That got some of your attention!

I don’t propose to analyze the Court’s overall approach to the administrative law questions and the standard of review here. For a more comprehensive treatment, I suggest Paul Daly’s blog Administrative Law Matters which links to his longer paper posted on SSRN. My task was to discuss the constitutional issues that the majority purported not to address.

In refusing to comment on its earlier administrative law decision in Doré v Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12, the Court leaves open many questions. Doré established that the standard of review of an administrative decision that impacted Charter rights was reasonableness, rather than the application of the Oakes test under s. 1 of the Charter, but in keeping with the general theme of proportionality under s.1, the decision needed to be a proportional balancing of the Charter right with the governing statutory objective. This approach was reiterated in Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 12 and the Trinity Western decisions (referenced below). It remains controversial, with critics claiming that it fails to respect the primary or priority of Charter rights[1] and fails to place the onus on government for justifying a limitation on rights as is required under s. 1 of the Charter.[2]

The majority states clearly that “constitutional matters require a final and determinate answer from the courts” (para.55), thus attracting the correctness standard of review. But that applies only to constitutional questions, such as a challenge to the constitutional validity of legislation. The majority of the Court goes on to state,

However, it is important to draw a distinction between cases in which it is alleged that the effect of the administrative decision being reviewed is to unjustifiably limit rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (as was the case in Doré) and those in which the issue on review is whether a provision of the decision maker’s enabling statute violates the Charter… [para. 57]

 

 

 

So, you might ask what is so unclear about that? The reasonableness standard continues to apply to the Doré set of cases, while challenges to statutes require the standard of correctness. But the Court interchanges constitutional questions with the term constitutional matters, which include federalism issues and treaty rights, and glosses over any confusion that could arise over what could fit within that category. For example, the Ontario Courts of Justice Act defines a constitutional question as one that invokes the constitutional validity or applicability of a statutory provision as well as a claim for a constitutional remedy under s.24(1) of the Charter. Does this mean that the standard of correctness applies to a claim for a constitutional remedy based on government action as opposed to the validity of a statute, as anticipated by R v Conway, 2010 SCC 22?

To illustrate the Court’s inconsistency on this issue alone, one need only look to the case of Ernst v Alberta Energy Regulators, 2017 SCC 1, admittedly not a judicial review, but a case that provides confusing analysis about what constitutes a constitutional question. The plaintiff was seeking Charter damages against the administrative body for allegedly infringing her Charter right to freedom of expression. The regulator raised the statutory provision that barred claims against it to seek a dismissal of the proceedings, while Ernst argued that the provision could not be interpreted so as to prevent a Charter claim. A minority of the Court agreed with the regulator’s interpretation that the legislation barred a damages claim, suggesting the Ernst ought to have sought a judicial review instead. Their ruling dismissing the appeal became the majority decision when Justice Abella reasoned that the claim should be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to file a Notice of Constitutional Question to have the provision declared unconstitutional. If that sounds confusing to you, you are not alone.

A further constitutional matter that could also fall within the category of general questions of law of central importance to the legal system as a whole, which is another category requiring the correctness standard of review, is the consistent interpretation of a Charter right itself. As McLachlin, C.J. (as she then was) noted in her concurring reasons in Law Society of British Columbia v Trinity Western University, 2018 SCC 32, possibly conflating reasonableness and correctness in this context,

…[T]he scope of the guarantee of the Charter right must be given a consistent interpretation regardless of the state actor, and it is the task of the courts on judicial review of a decision to ensure this. A decision based on an erroneous interpretation of a Charter right will be unreasonable. Canadians should not have to fear that their rights will be given different levels of protection depending on how the state has chosen to delegate and wield its power. [para. 116]

 

 

 

 

In stating that it was not revisiting Doré, the majority said that “reconsideration of [its approach to the standard of review of reasonableness was] not germaine to the issues in this appeal” [para.57]. To properly examine this statement, one needs to dip one’s toe into the majority’s revised reasonableness framework. In asserting that the role of the reviewing court is to review and not to decide the issues themselves, the majority states that the review does not entail an “attempt to ascertain the ‘range’ of possible conclusions that would have been open to the decision maker” [para.83]. This specifically contradicts the language of Doré [para. 56] in respect of the proportionality analysis and the approach to judicial review generally enunciated in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 [para. 47]. The Court reiterated this pre-Vavilov approach in Trinity Western University v Law Society of Upper Canada, 2018 SCC 33, where Justice Abella stated for the majority,

The reviewing court must consider whether there were other reasonable possibilities that would give effect to Charter protections more fully in light of the objectives, always asking whether the decision falls within a range of reasonable outcomes [Doré, at para.57; Loyala, at para. 41, citing RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 1995 CanLII 64 (SCC), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199, at para. 160). [para. 36]

 

 

 

It is difficult to ascertain whether a given decision that is required to balance Charter rights against legislative purpose is proportional without asking whether the decision falls within a range of reasonable outcomes. While the section 1 Oakes test is not applicable, the imperative of minimally impairing a Charter right is central to the proportionality analysis.

Another aspect of the decision that raises questions about the approach to expect in future cases is the Court’s treatment of context. The contextual approach to determining the standard of review has been clearly rejected. Reasonableness, even where Charter rights are implicated (other than a constitutional question), is the presumptive standard. However, context still plays a role in the way that a robust reasonableness review is conducted.

The majority states, “what is reasonable in a given situation will always depend on the constraints imposed by the legal and factual context of the particular decision under review” [para. 90]. However, it is also important to note that the majority in Trinity Western also stated that in the Charter context reasonableness and proportionality are synonymous, suggesting, perhaps, a different approach to the standard of reasonableness given that one could argue that proportionality requires a particular approach when assessing the impact on Charter protected rights.

While we appear to be stuck with Doré for the foreseeable future, that may not be a bad thing in light of the Court’s deferential approach to reasonableness in Vavilov. However, questions still remain under that approach as to who bears the onus for demonstrating the reasonableness of a decision, with the Courts generally requiring those challenging the decision to meet that onus. This leaves the individual alleging the breach of their Charter rights with the burden, unlike the onus on government under the Oakes test.

So, my short summary was that there are more questions than answers in respect of the implications of Vavilov for constitutional issues. Those questions for me include: What is a constitutional question? Does the interpretation of the Charter right invoke the standard of correctness or is an incorrect interpretation unreasonable? How will the context of a Charter claim alter the reasonableness standard, or will it? How will the proportionality analysis be conducted if the reviewer is not to examine alternative outcomes that could have been available? And, does the requirement of justification and the focus on reasons address any of the issues pertaining to onus that have been the subject of the criticism of Doré?

Cheryl Milne is the Executive Director of the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights

[1] Macklin, Audrey, Charter Right or Charter Lite? Administrative Discretion and the Charter (October 9, 2014). Supreme Court Law Review, Vol 67, 2014. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2507801

[2] Liston, Mary, Administering the Charter, Proportioning Justice: Thirty-five Years of Development in a Nutshell Canadian Journal of Administrative Law & Practice; Toronto Vol. 30, Iss. 2, (Jun 2017): 211-246.

Frank v Canada: Contrasting the Section 1 Analyses

Posted on by Student

By: Sahil Kesar and Jasmit De Saffel

On January 11, 2019 the Supreme Court issued its decision on the constitutional challenge to provisions of the Canada Elections Act detailing residence requirements for voting in federal elections. The provisions in question denied the right to vote in federal elections to Canadian citizens residing abroad for five consecutive years or more.  The Court sided with the expats and held that the impugned provisions infringe section 3 of the Charter and were not saved under section 1.  Frank v Canada was substantively significant for deepening the constitutional protection of section 3 voting rights for Canadians. The decision was also procedurally note-worthy, particularly in the strongly contrasting section 1 analyses of the majority and dissent decisions.

While both the majority and dissent found a pressing and substantial purpose to the non-resident limitation, they both determined it to be different from each other. Writing for the majority, Wagner CJ found that the purpose of the legislation is to maintain the fairness of the electoral system to resident Canadians. Brown J and Cote J’s dissent found the purpose to be to privilege a relationship of some currency between electors and their communities.

The majority did not come to a conclusion on rational connection but they did reject the Attorney General’s arguments, suggesting that it is likely they did not find a rational connection. The dissent found a rational connection between the 5-year period and the objective of preserving currency between electors and their communities. They found that the majority’s reasoning in dismissing the rational connection, taken to its conclusion, creates inconsistencies in their argument.

The majority determined the appeal on minimal impairment. They held that the 5-year period has no basis and is over-inclusive as it applies even to those to whom it is not intended to apply. The dissent stated that, based on the options available to Parliament, the 5-year period was the least impairing option, especially considering the non-resident cut-offs for other similar democracies and that citizens can vote again once they re-establish residency.

Finally, on proportionality, the majority did not think the salutary effects outweigh the deleterious effects. They asserted that the impugned provisions disenfranchise over one-million non-resident Canadians who have been abroad for 5 years or more and that it is unclear how this advances fairness in the electoral system. It severely limits the ability of non-resident citizens to vote especially considering the laws that might be enacted could affect their citizenship. The dissent took the view that the salutary effects outweigh the deleterious effects mentioned by the majority. Addressing the concerns of reciprocity between exercising the right to vote and bearing the burden of Canadian laws and protecting the integrity of the electoral system outweigh any concerns with the legislation. They also found that the majority overlooks the importance of residence and effective representation in weighing the effects.

The dissent’s deferential section 1 analysis did not decide this case but should be noted for giving the government more leeway in justifying infringements on voting rights. Considering Rowe J’s openness to a limit based on residency in his concurring judgement, one wonders if there is potential for the dissent’s less stringent section 1 analysis to decide future cases about positive rights guaranteed in the Charter?

Sahil Kesar is the current Asper Centre half-time clinic student and a 3L JD candidate at UTLaw.

Jasmit de Saffel is this year’s Asper Centre’s work-study student and a 1L JD candidate at UTLaw.