General
Canadian Caselaw Resources
- direct links to the Decisions page of each
of the following:
* Ontario Court of Justice (most family and criminal
cases in Ontario)
* Ontario Superior Court (main civil court in Ontario,
some family and criminal)
* Ontario Divisional Court (administrative
appeals, judicial reviews and smaller civil appeals)
* Ontario Court of
Appeal (highest Ontario Court)
* Federal Court - Trial Division
(first level court for matters under federal jurisdiction such as telecommunications,
intellectual property, rail/air/shipping, maritime, immigration etc)
*
Federal Court of Appeal (appeals from Federal Court - Trial Division)
*
Supreme Court of Canada
* UK and Ireland Cases (British cases are
often relevant to the interpretation of Canadian law)
* Australia and NZ
Cases (also useful in interpretation)
Source:
(Ontario)
The purpose of the Isthatlegal.ca website is to provide, in one
convenient and generally accessible on-line location, detailed and thorough legal
guides to areas of Ontario and Canadian law of general importance to the economically
vulnerable in our society, and to their advocates. All users should ensure
that they meet the Terms of Use of the site.
[ ]
- search case law decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada
(1993 to date), the Federal Court of Canada () and the B.C. Court of
Appeal and Supreme Court (1996 to date)
Source:
(Browsable Law Directories)
|
- from
The Supreme Court of Canada Decisions website provides free access to Court
decisions since 1948.
- from Wikipedia
[Note: According to , "this
is a remarkable effort. It lists notable cases from the beginning of the court
and links to the judgments, and lists all current judgments starting with
1998. Moreover, there are good charts of voting patterns in the recent cases.
Well worth the visit."]
An initiative of Osgoode Hall Law School, The Court is a site where
scholars, practitioners and other interested citizens can discuss
the recent work of the Supreme Court of Canada
- six links worth checking...
|
- from the Law Library at
- incl. federal and provincial-territorial judgements and decisions,
legislation, etc.
- "an information and research resource"
NOTE: this site link was dead when I visited on April
16, 2010.
I'm leaving the entry on this page for historical purposes and in the hope
that this U. of T. website will be reactivated.
"This site is an initiative of the Discretionary Justice
and Social Welfare Working Group, sponsored by the University of Toronto,
Faculty of Law."
- incl. links to : Case Law - Litigation Materials - Statutes and Regulations
- "Guidelines" and Other Forms of Soft Law - Papers, Presentations,
and Reports - Course Outlines, Bibliographies, and Related Material - Related
Links
Source:
The Poverty and Human Rights Centre is committed to eradicating poverty
and promoting social and economic equality through human rights.
February 1, 2008
This Law Sheet, produced
by the Poverty and Human Rights Centre, is concerned with the role that international
human rights law can play in the interpretation of the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms and other laws in Canada. It is intended to assist lawyers in their
advocacy work before courts and tribunals. It is also intended to assist non-governmental
organizations who rely on the human rights framework in their work to assist members
of vulnerable groups. It is specifically focused on the domestic enforcement of
social and economic rights.
The Factum Library section contains factums, pleadings and
other litigation documents from selected Canadian Charter of Rights and statuatory
human rights cases. The materials are organized by case name, parties, and document
date.
Sections
7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights
- incl. links
to : Contents | Interpretation | Waiver | Criminal Code | Statutes | Cases
This
is a must-read for anyone interested in the Canadian Charter of Rights, for the
connoisseurs and the curious alike --- includes an overview of each section of
the Charter with commentaries (by Graham Garton, Q.C., Department of Justice,
Ottawa) plus a large section of Charter decisions (with links to the actual text
wherever possible).
Here are the links to two of
the most relevant sections for poverty law in Canada:
"Everyone has the right
to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof
except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."
Section
15 - Equality
"15.(1)
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 and, in particular,
without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion,
sex, age or mental or physical disability."
"15.(2) Subsection (1) does
not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration
of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are
disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex,
age or mental or physical disability."
Source:
---
*
-
incl links to : Home | Welcome | About the Coalition | Discussion Papers | Quotes
| Press Releases | Supreme Court of Canada Section 15 Cases | Media Coverage |
Relevant Links | Contact Us | français
"April 17, 2005, marks the
20th anniversary of the entry into force of section 15 of the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms, which guaranteed the right of Canadians to equality. The
Charter itself came into force in 1982. The three-year delay of section 15 allowed
federal, provincial and territorial governments time to bring their legislation
into line with its provisions." [Excerpt from the Welcome page]
*NOTE:
this website is no longer online.
Clicking the link above takes you to a copy
of the site from as it appeared
in June of 2008.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared
by Mary C. Hurley
Law and Government Division
August 1995 - Revised January
2005
"This paper contains a summary review of a number of principles
relevant to section 15 and section 1 analysis, as determined by the Supreme Court
of Canada, followed by a chart setting out basic elements of the Court’s
decisions in which the equality rights provision has been raised.(...) Subsection
15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in effect since April 1985,
provides that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right
to the equal protection of the law without discrimination and, in particular,
without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion,
sex, age or mental or physical disability."
Source:
[ ]
----------------------------------------------------------------
(Word file - 62K, 3 pages)
- list of Canadian cases that address social and
economic rights --- includes links to specific cases
Source:
|
by Simon Fodden
March 5, 2008
The Women’s
Court of Canada launches this week. The WCC is a group of women academics and
practitioners who combined to rewrite six Supreme Court of Canada decisions to
take a full and proper account of women’s equality. The affected decisions
are:
* Symes v. Canada, [1993] : deduction — child care expenses —
women — taxpayer — income
* Native Women’s Association of Canada
v. Canada, [1994] : funding — freedom of expression — women — equal
— constitutional
* Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education, [1997] :
placement — disabled — special — child — pupil
* Law v.
Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1999] : discrimination —
differential treatment — claimant — survivor’s pension — dignity
* Gosselin v. Quebec (Attorney-General), [2002] : programs — welfare recipients
— security of the person — dignity — legislation
* Newfoundland
(Treasury Board) v. Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Public and Private
Employees, [2004] : pay equity — government — crisis — hospital
workers — women
SourceL
- a
cooperative Canadian weblog on things legal
---
Gutsy, legal-minded Canadian
women refuse to take 'because' for an answer
By Janice Kennedy
March
2, 2008
Law professors Natasha Bakht, Diana Majury and Rosemary Cairns Way
say it's time to get serious about women's equality. Majury, a law professor,
is a founding member of the Women's Court of Canada, to be unveiled this week.
They were probably a bit defiant as young girls. Uppity, even. These women must
have been the kind of kids who kept asking, "But why?" even after the
ultimate parental law had been laid down. "Because I said so" just didn't
cut it for them. Still doesn't. Their stage is large and public now, and the issues
more far-reaching, but these stubborn women are still challenging conventional
wisdom. And in Toronto later this week, International Women's Week, they will
engage in a startling act of uppitiness. They will unveil the Women's Court of
Canada. Bravo. The Women's Court is a group of Canadian lawyers, law professors
and activists who have decided it's time to get serious about women's equality.
Source:
---
(PDF - 204K, 12 pages)
2008
By
Diana Majury
Source:
[ ]
---
In 2004, a group of feminist / equality Charter
activists, lawyers, and academics, decided to do something about what they
saw as the sorry state of equality jurisprudence under s. 15. The solution,
rewrite the key decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada in this important
area. The first six judgments of the Women’s Court of Canada have now
been published in Volume 18 of the . Over the coming months TheCourt.ca will
have the honour of reproducing these judgments and providing them with a permanent
online home.
Source:
An initiative of Osgoode Hall Law School, The Court is a site where scholars,
practitioners and other interested citizens can discuss the recent work of
the Supreme Court of Canada.
(39 pages)
July 8, 2009
by Gwen Brodsky, Rachel Cox,
Shelagh Day and Kate Stephenson
The Women’s Court of Canada reconsiders
the 2002 decision [see link below, under Related links] in Gosselin v. Québec
(Attorney General), in which the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that section 29(a)
of Québec’s Regulation Respecting Social Aid, which reduced the welfare
rate of recipients under the age of thirty to below subsistence level (in the
1980s), did not violate sections 7 or 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms or section 45 of the Québec Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
"(...)
We decided to participate in the Women’s Court’s reconsideration of
Gosselin because we believe that sections 15 and 7 of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms and section 45 of the Québec Charter of Human Rights
and Freedoms are fully capable of addressing poverty issues and that the reluctance
of courts in Canada to interpret them in this way reflects what Louise Arbour
has called 'judicial timidity.'’’
* Recommended
reading for welfare historians and anyone interested in sections 7 and 15 of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
NOTE: the
Gosselin case is one of five cases that you'll find on the page (as at July 2009); the complete final
list appears below.
Related links:
(106 pages)
- the official decision
of the Supreme Court of Canada
Source:
Links to more resources about the
Gosselin case - this link takes you further down on the page you're
now reading
"...key
court cases and laws that have shaped human rights in our country since 1900."
The
site is divided into 4 distinct periods: /// ///
/// .
You can navigate the site via one of these
time portals or by subject.
Subjects include : Human Rights - Women's Rights
- Minority Rights - Aboriginal Rights - Persons with Disabilities - Freedom of
Expression - Freedom of Religion - Voting Rights - Criminal Law - International
- Charter - Justice Department's History - Ministers
(Full text from the Dept. of Justice)
(Full text from the Dept. of Justice)
Selected
Cases
Federal Court denies retroactive Quebec claim
for $394 million
under the Canada Assistance Plan
June 6, 2008
From 1966-67 until 1996 when it was replaced by the Health and Social Transfer,
the Canada Assistance Plan (CAP) was the statutory framework for federal government
contributions (50% of eligible expenditures) towards the cost of social assistance
(welfare) and social services in the provinces and territories. [See the
CAP Resources page of this site for more detail.]. From 1996 to 2000,
the federal government settled all of its outstanding accounts with each jurisdiction,
except for Quebec, which filed a court action for close to $400 million against
the federal government. This amount represented the total of federal cost-sharing
that Quebec officials felt they were entitled to receive under CAP but never
did. CAP officials maintained all along that the program did not allow for
cost-sharing of services and initiatives that were already receiving federal
support under another program (such as Education) or that were universal in
nature.
NOTE: the links below were broken when I checked
them, so I've removed them but left the text for your reading enjoyment (and
if you wish to follow up using Google's search engine).
Upon
review, the Court concluded (June 6, 2008) that Canada was not obliged under the
terms of CAP to share the cost of the specified expenses.
Source:
English summary (PDF - 16K, 1 paragraph)
*
The services for which Quebec was seeking cost-sharing were:
1.
Services provided to juvenile delinquents in Quebec between 1979 and 1984
---
a period during which juvenile delinquents were housed in the same institutions
as children in care of the Quebec government
2.
Social services provided in a school environment between 1973 and 1996
---
from the time Quebec transferred this budget item to the Ministère des
Affaires sociales in 1973 until the end of CAP
3.
Support services provided to people with disabilities living in a residential
establishment
--- from the time this type of establishment appeared in
the health and social services network until the end of CAP
T-2834-96
Decision IN THE MATTER OF QUEBEC vs. CANADA (French
only) (PDF - 908K, 226 pages)
(this is Federal Court, so I'm sure they'll soon be
posting an English version of this decision. Click the Federal Court source link
below to see if the English version is online.)
Summary (PDF - 16K, 1 paragraph)
Annex A Canada Assistance Plan Statute (PDF - 4.2MB, 17 pages)
Annex B Canada Assistance Plan Regulations (PDF - 4.9MB, 16 pages)
NOTE:
Annexes A and B are enormous PDF files containing the Canada Assistance Plan (statute)
and Regulations in side-by-side French-English format.
If you just wish to
read the CAP statute and regulations in English in HTML format, see:
Canada
Assistance Plan
Canada
Assistance Plan Regulations
Source:
The Federal Court's jurisdiction - its scope of authority to hear
and decide issues - extends across the federal landscape, and it includes claims
involving the Federal Crown.
[ ]
The National Child Benefit Supplement Clawback
NOTE: Some of the links below were broken when I checked
them, so I've removed the broken ones and left the text for information.
Hand Off! Stop Taking Our Baby Bonus!
A campaign to stop the clawback of the National Child Benefit Supplement (NCBS)
"The Hands off! Campaign asks
the Provincial and the Federal government to do 2 things:
* End the clawback
of the National Child Benefit Supplement from families on social assistance, now!
* Fund the reinvestment programs that work for low-income families out of other
provincial and federal revenues.
- includes links to : Take Action | Send an
e-Card | Lobby MPP / MP | Endorse Campaign | Links | Income Security Advocacy
Centre | Contact Us
In December 2004, a legal challenge to the
clawback was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice by the Income Security
Advocacy Centre, the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation (CERA)and the
Charter Committee on Poverty Issues.
Source:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reports confirm that the National Child
Benefit contributes to reducing child poverty
August
4, 2005
"OTTAWA — Federal, Provincial and Territorial Ministers Responsible
for Social Services today affirmed that the National Child Benefit contributes
to reducing child poverty in Canada1. This is supported by an analysis they released
today titled Impact of the National Child Benefit on the Incomes of Families
with Children: A Simulation Analysis. It is also supported by two recently
released reports: National Child Benefit Progress Report: 2003 released
on April 6, 2005 and Evaluation of the National Child Benefit Initiative:
Synthesis Report released on June 6, 2005. (...) Technical evaluation
reports are available upon request from Social Development Canada."
Complete report + annexes:
NOTE: The links below were broken when I checked them, so
I've removed them and left the text for information.
Try using Google.ca to find another version of this content
Impact of the National Child Benefit on
the Incomes of Families with Children: A Simulation Analysis (2003)
Annex 1: Impact of the National Child Benefit on the Incomes of Families
with Children: Using Post-Tax Low-Income Measure (LIM)
Annex 2: Impact of the National Child Benefit on the Incomes of Families
with Children: Using Market Basket Measure
Related
links to government content:
National Child Benefit Progress Report:
2003 - April 2005
Evaluation of the National Child Benefit Initiative: Synthesis Report
- February 2005
Source:
[Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers
Responsible for Social Services]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By CAROL GOAR
March
11, 2005
Life was supposed to get better for Canada's poorest children when
the federal government introduced its national child benefit supplement seven
years ago.
For approximately half the 1 million kids living below the poverty
line, it did. The other half got nothing.
The difference: their parents' source
of income.
(...)
This week, a coalition of child welfare organizations,
faith groups, women's shelters, legal aid clinics, unions and municipalities launched
a public appeal to the Ontario government to treat all low-income children equally.
The campaign is called Hands Off! It is designed to convince Dalton McGuinty that
it is wrong to snatch money out of the pockets of parents who can't afford groceries,
decent housing or school supplies."
Source:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related
Links:
By Richard Shillington
Source:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: The links below were broken when I checked
them, so I've removed them and left the text for information.
Try using Google.ca to find another version of this content
Challenge to the Clawback of the
National Child Benefit Supplement - OPICCO
December 10, 2004
"Today the Income Security Advocacy Centre
(ISAC), the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation (CERA) and the Charter
Committee on Poverty Issues (CCPI), have formally launched a legal challenge to
the clawback of the National Child Benefit Supplement from families on social
assistance. The Applicants are three single parents who have been struggling on
OW or ODSP to make ends meet, without the benefit of the NCBS. They live in Timmins,
Port Colborne and Toronto. Counsel for this application are Kate Stephenson from
WeirFoulds and Cynthia Wilkey from ISAC. Both the Federal Government and the Province
of Ontario will be served today with an Application under Rule 14 claiming that
the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Agreement to claw back the NCBS and the Regulations
that implement the clawback in Ontario violate both s.7 and s.15 of the Charter."
Press Release (Word doc., size 88 kb)
Backgrounder (Word doc., size 31 kb)
Source:
Editorial
comment:
This legal challenge is
a matter of principle for these Ontario-based social justice groups. They contend
that the reduction of social assistance rates by an amount equal to the NCB Supplement
is unfair, and that it discriminates against families with children in receipt
of welfare in Ontario and (because the case involves the federal government) everywhere
else in Canada.
I wholeheartedly support
any effort to improve the financial well-being of needy families with children
in Ontario and everywhere else in Canada. However, I also support adequate welfare
levels for *childless* individuals and couples receiving social assistance, and
I hope that, in the event of a legal victory, any resulting court-ordered increases
to welfare levels for families with children would not be to the detriment of
clients without kids.
I agree that
NCB reinvestment funds should not come from the cheques of families with children
receiving social assistance in Ontario or anywhere else in Canada. But I do support
most of the progressive initiatives that were put in place as reinvestments since
the National Child Benefit initiative started in 1998.
I do hope that, at the end
of the day, there will still be sufficient funding for these reinvestments...
Kelly
Lesiuk
August 2003
Newsletter of the Income Security
Advocacy Centre (ISAC)
Contents:
1. Looking for justice
in all the wrong places (ref. to the Kelly Lesiuk case)
2. Low Income
People Hit Hardest By Blackout
3. ISAC Persuades Premier To Declare ODSP Offices
An Essential Service
4. Ontario Needs a Raise!
5. An Ontario Child Benefit?
6. Regional Updates
7. The "Lifetime Ban" Goes to Court
8.
ISAC AGM Notice
Source:
- from the Income Security Advocacy
Centre (ISAC)
ISAC overview of the Lesiuk case
:
-
ISAC's factum for the Lesiuk case
- the Umpire's Decision (March 2001)
-
the Federal Court Decision (January 8, 2003)
- Few Benefits for Part-Time Work (ISAC op ed article [short .RTF file]
on the Lesiuk case published in the Toronto Star on July 31, 2003)
Source :
Supreme Court won't hear challenge to EI system:
Decision allows 'fundamental injustice' against women to continue
Posted July 21, 2003
"The Supreme
Court of Canada has declined to hear the case of a former Manitoba nurse who says
the Employment Insurance system discriminates against women."
Source :
Alberta woman's case against EI rejected
July 17, 2003
"Ottawa — An Alberta nurse who argues that Canada's Employment Insurance
program discriminates against mothers who don't work full-time lost her bid
Thursday to have the case heard by the Supreme Court of Canada. Kelly Lesiuk
sought leave to appeal after the Federal Court of Appeal ruled the unemployment-insurance
system did not discriminate against her."
Source :
Related Links:
[NOTE: I can't find a transcript of the
Lesiuk decision. Go to this page and use the search engine to find "Kelly
Lesiuk" or look for a July 17, 2003 release.]
(November 1998)
Appeal to an Umpire by the Claimant from a
Decision by the Board of Referees given on November 19, 1998 at Winnipeg, Manitoba
(January 2003)
- Heard at Edmonton, Alberta,
on November 19 and 20, 2002.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on January
8, 2003
Source:
Kimberly
Rogers
Coroner's
inquest in Sudbury (Ontario) into the death of Kimberly Rogers in August 2001,
after being convicted of welfare fraud in the spring of that year for not declaring
student loans she received while collecting social assistance.
- index organized by day of the inquest
Source
:
August
3, 2004
Article by Jane Smith (a juror in the Kimberly Rogers inquest)
and Jacquie Chic (Director of Advocacy and Legal Services at the Income
Security Advocacy Centre, which represented two groups at the inquest).
Source:
Related Link:
A coroner's inquest was
held, starting in October 2002 in Sudbury into the death of Kimberly Rogers on
August ), after being convicted of welfare fraud in the spring of that
year for not declaring student loans she received while collecting social assistance.
The Justice with Dignity website is where you'll find the most complete and current
collection of information about this inquiry.
Source:
|
Ban
the Ban!
(Followup to the decision in the Kimberly Rogers case)
"105
people to date are subject to the lifetime ban [National Post figures]. That number
will continue to grow as the government said they do not intend to change the
law. We have to change their mind. The most immediate thing we can do is to send
many letters to the editor and call radio shows to say that the jury that heard
8 weeks of evidence, and the Sudbury police department, got it right--the ban
is not only morally wrong but also a threat to public safety.
We will then
start a campaign to enlist many more allies such as public health departments,
municipalities (again), etc. in pushing for change. But we need their to be some
broader public attention to this issue. This next few days right after this story
came out is the best time to do that. As busy as everyone is with work and personal
lives in this holiday season, please take the time to fire off a quick letter
to your local paper or call a radio station."
Thanks,
Nancy Vander
Plaats
(OSSN)
Related Links:
- contact info for Toronto Star - Globe and Mail - Northern
Life - National Post - Ottawa Citizen
- also includes text suggestions for
you to use in your letter if you want to have your say but aren't sure of the
right words...
- Near the top of the DAWN home page,
you'll find links to the DAWN Ontario Media Kit (Effective Letters to the Editor
- Writing & Publishing an Op-Ed - Taking Action to the Airwaves) plus an extensive
media directory for Ontario and contact information for Ontario MPPs
Press Release
December
19, 2002
Source :
Press Release
December
20 2002
Source :
|
Rogers
Inquest Verdict and Recommendations
December 19,
2002
- plus 14 recommendations and rationale
Source :
|
(PDF file - 685K, 4 pages)
-includes links to other suggested recommendations
by : the City of Sudbury - the CAEFS Coalition (Canadian Elizabeth
Fry Societies, National Association of Women and the Law, Women's Legal Education
and Action Fund, National Anti-Poverty Organization) - Sudbury Social Planning
Council - Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General.
Media Coverage - Post Rogers Inquest (Justice with Dignity
Campaign site)
[NOTE : the articles below are just a small sample of what you'll find
on the DAWN - Ontario Justice with Dignity site
Editorial, Toronto Star, Dec. 23
by Murray Campbell, Globe &
Mail, Dec. 23
by Linda McQuaig Toronto Star,
Dec. 22
Globe
& Mail, Dec. 20
by Robert Benzie, National
Joke, Dec. 20
Osprey
Media Group Inc. Dec. 20
by Barb Anello
and Jacquie Chic, Op/Ed, Toronto Star, Dec. 20
by James McMartin, Canadian
Press, Toronto Star, Dec. 19
by Keith Lacey, Northern
Life, Dec. 19
by Darren Yourk, Globe
and Mail, Dec. 19
Louise
Gosselin
On October 29, 2001, the Supreme Court
of Canada heard an historic case - the first claim under the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms and the first claim under human rights legislation to a
right to an adequate level of social assistance for those in need.
Gosselin v. Quebec goes back to a Québec government policy in the
mid-eighties that paid a maximum welfare allowance of $173*
a month to single employable welfare recipients under 30 years of age and
$434 a month to people over 30 and those who were unemployable, before the
regulation changed in 1989 to eliminate the lower maximum benefit level
for clients under 30. Ms. Gosselin alleged that the regulation violates
sections 7 and 15 of the as well as section 45 of the
[]
The case had potential
repercussions on welfare programs across Canada
[*
This amount varies depending on which account one reads. In fact, for the period
covered by the case (April 1985 to August 1989), the amount went from about $160
to $175]
The Gosselin Decision
December 19, 2002
The decision of the Supreme Court was announced on December 19,
2002. The Gosselin case was dismissed by a narrow majority (5-4)
Source:
---
Mirror copy of the decision:
(106 pages)
- the official decision of the Supreme Court of Canada
Source:
|
(PDF file - 71K, 20 pages)
Posted February 1, 2004
"Gwen Brodsky, one of the lawyers intervening in the Gosselin c+ase,
has written a paper on the implications of the decision for future anti-poverty
litigation in Canada."
Gosselin vs Quebec (Attorney General): Autonomy With a Vengeance
What are the implications of the Supreme Court of Canada in decision
in Gosselin, for future anti-poverty litigation? In an upcoming issue of
Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, a case comment by Gwen Brodsky criticizes
the majority decision in Gosselin: "The challenged social assistance
regulation embodied a negative stereotype of young men and women who are
reliant on social assistance, which, sadly, the majority of the Court embraced."
However, Brodsky also shows that "the decision is deeply divided, and
the majority decision turns on a finding that the evidence was insufficient.
Therefore, as precedent," argues Brodsky, "the outcome of the
Gosselin case may not be particularly significant.
Source:
|
Gosselin Decision Forewarns of Right to Welfare
(PDF file - 120K, 2 pages)
January
2003
Chris Schafer
"The special-interest lobby is chomping at
the bit in regards to the possibilities that this most recent Supreme Court judgment
presents to support further claims of a constitutionally-mandated right to welfare,
housing, etc."*
Source :
*NOTE: the author cites a
press release (see below) by the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation (CERA)
as proof-of-chomping. CERA's "special interest"? "CERA works to
remove the barriers that keep disadvantaged individuals and families from accessing
and retaining the housing they need."
Related
Link:
Human Rights and Housing Groups see Positive
Signs in Supreme Court Poverty DecisionNews Release (December 19, 2002)
"The Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation
and the Ottawa-based Barriers Elimination Working Group believe that while this
case leaves many issues important to low income people undecided, it takes steps
in the right direction."
Source:
|
---
By Keith Jones
27 December 2002
Source:
---
(39 pages)
July 8, 2009
by Gwen Brodsky, Rachel Cox, Shelagh Day and Kate Stephenson
The Women’s Court of Canada reconsiders the 2002 decision [see link
below, under Related links] in Gosselin v. Québec (Attorney General),
in which the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that section 29(a) of Québec’s
Regulation Respecting Social Aid, which reduced the welfare rate of recipients
under the age of thirty to below subsistence level (in the 1980s), did not
violate sections 7 or 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
or section 45 of the Québec Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
"(...) We decided to participate in the Women’s Court’s reconsideration
of Gosselin because we believe that sections 15 and 7 of the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms and section 45 of the Québec Charter of Human
Rights and Freedoms are fully capable of addressing poverty issues and that
the reluctance of courts in Canada to interpret them in this way reflects
what Louise Arbour has called 'judicial timidity.'’’
* Recommended reading for welfare
historians and anyone interested in sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms
---
The Gosselin Decision - Selected responses and analysis
(The links below pointed to content from the
website which has since been re-launched. I've removed the old broken links
- just go to the PovNet site and use the search engine)
National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL)
- "NAWL is extremely disappointed by the majority ruling of the
Supreme Court of Canada in Gosselin v. the Attorney General of Québec."
The Charter Committee on Poverty Issues (CCPI) - "Majority
leaves ray of hope for Canada's poor : minority finds right to adequate
living standards"
The Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation (CERA)
- "Human Rights and Housing Groups see Positive Signs in Supreme
Court Poverty Decision - The Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation
and the Ottawa-based Barriers Elimination Working Group believe that while
this case leaves many issues important to low income people undecided, it
takes steps in the right direction"
Poverty and Human Rights Project summary
(PDF file - 59K, 4 pages) - "The Court is split, and there is both
good news and bad news for those who are concerned about the current punitive
attitudes of federal and provincial governments towards poor Canadians."
Victoria Anti-Poverty Coalition - "Canada's
Supreme Court is out of touch with economic, environmental and poverty realties."
Coroner's Report Released
Supreme Court of Canada Divided on Welfare Benefits
December 19, 2002
PovNet's home page offers a summary of both the
Kimberly Rogers inquest in Sudbury (Ontario) and the Louise Gosselin case in the
Supreme Court of Canada, as well as links to further information in both cases.
Gosselin Decision : A Divided Court
Press Release
December 19, 2002
Source:
National Association of Women and the Law
- from the
- incl. links to :
Facta (CCPI - National Association of Women and the Law - Attorney General of
Ontario) - NAPO News article - NAWL Information - Rewriting the Charter at 20
or Reading it Right: The Challenge of Poverty and Homelessness - CCPI's AFFIDAVIT
- CCPI Links
Gosselin v. Québec --- an important case for
the future of social assistance
- "A right-to-welfare court challenge in Quebec could affect us all."
- Ref. to the Gosselin case ("...the real legacy of this case will
be that litigants may turn to documentary evidence from international human
rights instruments, nowhere legislated in domestic law, to push for ever
greater economic benefits and state resources. Why work when you can sue?")
Source: - "Competitive Market Solutions for Public Policy
Problems"
James
Finlay
1993 (HTML - 113K, 26 pages)
Supreme Court Decision concerning the Canada Assistance Plan, cost-sharing of
provincial social assistance and the adequacy of those benefits.
Focuses (among
other matters) on "basic requirements" under provincial welfare programs.
Mary
Collins
1999
Collins v. Canada (T.D.) [2000] 2 F.C. 3
"This case involves the constitutionality
of certain provisions of the Old Age Security Act,[1] which accord to spouses
of pensioners a spouse's allowance when they reach the age of 60, payable until
they themselves become pensioners at age 65. The plaintiff alleges that these
provisions violate subsection 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms[2]
on the ground of marital status because they exclude separated spouses from receiving
the spousal allowance."
Collins v. Canada Court of Appeal, Fredericton,
December 3, 2001
Decision re. Collins v. Canada Court of Appeal
- March 1, 2002
NOTE: I've removed the dead links --- try doing
a Google search for each of these titles (using the text that is bolded above)
Source:
Same
Sex Unions
January 29, 2004
"Canada's attempt
to legalize gay marriage likely will be delayed until after expected national
elections because the government asked its supreme court Wednesday to decide whether
traditional marriage meets constitutional requirements. The supreme court already
is considering the constitutionality of the federal government's proposed legislation
sanctioning same-sex unions, and Wednesday's move gives justices another issue
to consider."
Source:
"The national gay and lesbian newsmagazine"
News
Release
January 28, 2004
The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of
Canada, Irwin Cotler:
"May I begin by saying that the Government of Canada
is reaffirming its position in the marriage reference, organized around two foundational
principles - support for equality - and within that the extension of civil marriage
to same-sex couples - and support for religious freedom - and within that protection
for religious officials from being forced to perform a marriage ceremony between
two persons of the same sex where it is against their religious beliefs. But there
is a third important principle, and that is the importance of a full and informed
debate before the court, in Parliament and in response to concerns of the public.
It is to respect that third principle that the Government is seeking the opinion
of the Supreme Court of Canada on a new question in the reference on civil marriage
and the legal recognition of same-sex unions."
Source:
Related Justice Canada Links:
(Backgrounder)
(Fact Sheet)
Maternity
and Parental Leave
"The
following Appeal was drafted by a small group of feminist activists -- Bev Bain,
Maryann Bird, Barbara Cameron, Marjorie Griffin Cohen, Shelagh Day, Martha Friendly,
Martha Jackman, Kerry McCuaig and Leah Vosko -- who see an urgent need for a collective
response to protect maternity and parental leave benefits offered through Employment
Insurance. We ask you to read our Appeal, act on it and circulate it through your
networks"
Source:
[
] - also
incl. links to : Political Parties - Ridings and Candidates - Tools and Resources
[
]
Related Links:
Elizabeth Thompson
CanWest News
Service
January 29, 2004
"OTTAWA - A landmark Quebec Court of Appeal
ruling that parental leaves are provincial jurisdiction and that employment insurance
should not be used to fund social programs could have an impact on the federal
government's ability to help Canadian families, Paul Martin, the Prime Minister,
said yesterday."
Source:
Procureur général du Québec
c. Procureur général du Canada (Word file - 167K, 41
pages) - French only
[This broken link was removed - try doing a Google search...]
January 27, 2004 - the official decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal
Source:
(French only)
- from
(Quebec Law Page - English)
Miscellaneous
November 12, 2009
Related links:
By Nicholas Keung
November 12, 2009
People who found themselves with huge debts after sponsoring immigrants have
won a landmark decision in Ontario's Court of Appeal. The court Thursday told
the Ontario government to revisit its social assistance collection policies
to recover debts owed by residents who sponsored immigrants to Canada. The
court chided both the federal and provincial governments for disregarding
the changing circumstances of the sponsors and the people they sponsored with
their cut-and-dried collection policies.
Source:
---
Ontario Court of Appeal orders governments to stop automatically
charging
individuals for social assistance debts of relatives they sponsored as immigrants;
ruling could cost governments millions
By Kirk Makin
November 12, 2009
The Ontario Court of Appeal has ordered governments to stop automatically
charging individuals tens of millions of dollars for social assistance debts
run up by family members who they had sponsored as immigrants. The Court said
that it is unfair to force people to pay substantial sums of money on behalf
of a relative they sponsored without first giving them an opportunity –
on a case-by-case basis – to explain why they should not have to pay.
Source:
---
, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 627
(Re. child support)
- information concerning Canadian human rights cases involving the Charter Committee
on Poverty Issues.
Source :
The - A Golden Oldie...
In
1990, the federal government, in order to reduce the federal budget deficit, decided
to cut expenditures and limit the growth of payments made to financially stronger
provinces under the Canada Assistance Plan. The whole issue ended up in court.
The decision includes a lot of good background info.
