Abstract
Drawing on his factums in many constitutional cases, this article suggests that Joe was an early and consistent champion for substantive, procedural and remedial equality. The first part examines Joe’s commitment to substantive equality including his arguments for British Columbia in Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, his forward-looking approach to Indigenous rights and his commitment to authentic public law litigation that respected the disadvantaged. The second part examines Joe’s recognition that substantive equality cannot be achieved without procedural equality that gives disadvantaged litigants the equal benefit of procedural rules that too often favour governments. It examines Joe’s arguments and impact with respect to public interest standing, court fees, advanced costs, special costs and statute of limitations. The third part examines how Joe argued against remedies that deprived disadvantaged groups of immediate and effective remedies. Joe’s vision of public law litigation — what he defended as the “public good of adjudication” — is an important legacy that should continue to be advanced. Joe understood that the promised land of substantive equality also requires procedural and remedial equality.
Citation Information
Roach, Kent.
"Joe’s Justice: Substantive, Procedural and Remedial Equality."
The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference
104.
(2022).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1431
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol104/iss1/9
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.