The federal government announced on Sept. 25, 2006 that it was abolishing the Court Challenges Program, a small program that provided modest contributions to the cost of important test cases dealing with language and equality rights. Without this Program, Canada’s constitutional rights are real only for the wealthy. A website is now online to coordinate national efforts to save it: http://www.savecourtchallenges.ca
Examples of cases supported by the Court Challenges Program – Equality Rights
Canadian Newspapers Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 122
A man was charged with sexually assaulting his wife. The woman applied for an order banning publication of any information that would identify her. Canadian Newspapers Co. took the position that the Criminal Code contravened the guarantee of freedom of the press in the Charter. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the the Criminal code section is justifiable since ito encourages victims of sexual assault to come forward by protecting them from the trauma of publication resulting in embarrassment.
R. v. Butler, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452
The Supreme Court of Canada articulated a harms-based test for determining when material should be considered obscene: the “community standard of tolerance” test, i.e. what Canadians would not tolerate other Canadians being exposed to. Material which may be said to exploit sex in a “degrading or dehumanizing” manner will fail the community standards test because it is perceived to be harmful to society, particularly women.
R. v. Prosper, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 236
In this case, the Supreme Court of Canada held that where an impoverished arrested person requests counsel, the police must desist from attempting to obtain a statement until counsel has been provided. “The poor are not constitutional castaways.”
Egan v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513
A gay couple from British Columbia challenged the definition of spouse in the Old Age Security Act, which denied a spousal benefit available to opposite sex partners. The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited by the Charter – a breakthrough for lesbians and gays seeking protection from discrimination.
Corbiere et al v. The Queen and Batchewana Indian Band, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 203
The Supreme Court of Canada agreed that the Indian Act residency requirement violated the equality rights of Aboriginal band members living off reserve. Particularly affected by the voting bar are women and their adult children who regained their Indian status under Bill C-31 and who never had the opportunity to live on the reserve.
R. v. Mills, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668
Mills, accused of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl, wanted to obtain records of visits she made to a counseling agency and a psychiatrist. He did not want to follow the procedures for accessing these records which are imposed by the Criminal Code. The Supreme Court of Canada found that the provisions do not interfere with an accused person’s right to a fair criminal process under sections 7 and 11(d) of the Charter.
R. v. Wu, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 530
Mr. Wu was disabled and on social assistance, with a dependent daughter. He was convicted of possession of contraband cigarettes, an offence which is subject to a mandatory minimum fine. The trial judge provided no time to pay and ordered a conditional sentence of 75 days in default of payment to be served in the community. The Supreme Court accepted submissions of an intervener representing poor people and found that those living in poverty should not face any form of incarceration solely because of their inability to pay a fine.
***
Ami-e-s,
Signez cette pétition afin de demander au gouvernement du Canada le rétablissement du Programme de contestation judiciaire et des autres programmes coupés par le gouvernement Harper le 25 septembre 2006 : www.capacadie.com/petition/petition.cfm
Le Programme de contestation judiciaire du Canada permet à des causes types fondées sur les droits linguistiques et les droits à l’égalité d’accéder au système judiciaire. Ces droits ne sont que des garanties sur papier si les personnes visées ne peuvent accéder aux tribunaux pour les faire appliquer.
À maintes reprises, le gouvernement du Canada a avisé les organes de traité des Nations Unies qu’il finançait le PCJ afin de se conformer à son obligation de garantir l’égalité d’accès aux tribunaux et de pourvoir d’efficaces recours en vertu des traités internationaux de droits de la personne
Dans une démocratie constitutionnelle comme le Canada, les causes-types constitutionnelles permettent d’examiner la signification des droits et leurs limites. Les montants alloués par le PCJ ne représentent qu’une fraction des coûts d’une cause-type fondée sur les droits constitutionnels.
The coalition of groups with intervener status at the Arar Inquiry, including the Law Union, released the following statement in response to the commission’s final report.
September 18, 2006
Ottawa – Justice Dennis O’Connor has confirmed the worst fears of Organizations with Intervenor Status at the Arar Inquiry: that Canadian officials were complicit in the torture of Maher Arar and other Canadian citizens.
“Justice O’Connor has documented in astonishing detail how the very officials tasked with protecting the rights of these
Canadian citizens failed to live up to that responsibility, and worse yet, were directly involved in passing on questions for
interrogations where torture would be used,” said Alex Neve, Secretary General of Amnesty International Canada.
The report details the callous disregard for the very real likelihood that government actions would directly contribute to the
torture of these Canadian citizens. In particular, there is chilling reference to an October 10, 2002 memo in which a Foreign
Affairs official warns that a decision to send a line of questioning about Abdullah Almalki to Syrian security agencies might
“involve torture.” The RCMP chose to ignore the concern and proceeded anyway:
“The RCMP are ready to send their Syrian counterparts a request that Al Malki be asked questions osed by the RCMP, questions relating to other members of his organization. Both ISI andDMSCUS/HOM [Ambassador Pillarella] have pointed out to the RCMP that such questioning may nvolve torture. The RCMP are aware of this but have nonetheless decided to send their request”(Report of the Events Relating to Maher Arar: Analysis and Recommendations, page 209).
Intervenors welcome Justice O’Connor’s recommendation that a further process of “independent and credible” review into the
cases of Mr. Abdullah Almalki, Mr. Ahmad El Maati and Mr. Muayyed Nureddin be instituted (Analysis and Recommendations,
page 278), and urge the government to act on this recommendation without further delay. These men have waited far too long
for answers and accountability.
Organizations intervening at the Arar Commission are also pleased that Justice O’Connor says that his Interim Report should
remove any “taint or suspicion” that Mr. Arar has committed any offence or constitutes any threat to the security of Canada
(Anaylsis and Recommendations, page 59).
Justice O’Connor is also clearly of the view that Mr. Arar is entitled to compensation and has encouraged the Canadian
government to be flexible in how that compensation should be assessed, recognizing the suffering he has been through, the
damage of the improper and unfair leaks, his difficulty in finding employment and the impact of the inquiry itself.
Justice O’Connor has also signaled that an apology might be appropriate (Analysis and Recommendations, page 362-363).
“The report offers a staggering catalogue of deficiencies, mistakes and even deliberate wrongdoing, all of which laid the
ground for the severe abuses suffered by Mr. Arar and the other three men named in this report,” said Neve.
Those responsible should be held accountable and the reforms recommended by Justice O’Connor should be immediately
implemented in order to guard against future repeats of these tragedies.
Justice O’Connor has also recommended that Canadian agencies involved in national security investigations implement
written policies prohibiting racial, religious or ethnic profiling, and training to sensitize those agencies to the realities of
Canada’s Muslim and Arab communities. Intervenors urge the government to prioritize the implementation of these
recommendations.
For more information, contact Kerry Pither, Committee of Intervenors at the Arar Inquiry, at mobile 613.294.2203, or Beth
Berton-Hunter, Amnesty International, at mobile 416.904.7158, Denis Barrette or Roch Tassé, at mobile 514.258.3945.
Students writing LSAT warned about privacy threat CBC News The University of Ottawa is warning aspiring lawyers that they may be giving up their privacy when they hand over thumbprints while taking an admission test administered by a U.S. company. The Law School Admission Test (LSAT), which is used by universities around the world, requires prospective students to provide an imprint of their thumb and other personal information, a move to prevent students from hiring smart imposters to write the test on their behalf. A private company in the United States, the Law School Admission Council, administers the test. Privacy experts and students are worried about how the Patriot Act, which allows U.S. agencies to secretly collect personal information in the name of national security, might affect information handed over to the company. Read Full Story
LAWYER WANTS CANADA TO LET US IRAQ DESERTERS STAY By Amran Abocar Reuters Thursday, February 09, 2006
TORONTO (Reuters) – Two U.S. army deserters were unfairly denied asylum in Canada partly because the refugee board would not consider the legality of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, their lawyer said on Wednesday. The soldiers want the Federal Court of Canada to overturn an immigration board decision last March that denied them refugee status in Canada. A decision on this round of the judicial process is not expected for several months, and it could take years to exhaust all legal appeals. Army privates Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey sought asylum in Canada in 2004, saying the war in Iraq was illegal and they feared committing atrocities if sent there. They also said they may be persecuted if returned to the United States. But the board refused to consider the legality of the invasion, dealing a blow to their case. “It’s just very convenient that of all the things in the world, the one thing the (refugee board) can’t decide upon is whether the U.S. invaded Iraq illegally,” lawyer Jeffry House said outside the courtroom. “We’re asking that this court state that we would have a right to litigate that question and provide evidence on that question.” If the Federal Court agrees to overturn the ruling, the case will go back before the refugee tribunal. If the court declines, it must decide whether to let the cases proceed to the Federal Court of Appeal. The soldiers, who face court martial and up to five years in prison in the United States, may remain in Canada while their case is under appeal. Full Story