Abstract
In British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Council of Canadians with Disabilities, Wagner C.J.C., for a unanimous Supreme Court of Canada, granted public interest standing to the Council of Canadians with Disabilities to challenge the constitutionality of provisions of British Columbia statutes that authorize physicians to subject patients with mental disabilities to psychiatric treatment without their consent or the consent of a substitute decision-maker. In many ways, the decision is simply a doubling-down on Cromwell J.’s unanimous decision a decade earlier in Canada (Attorney General) v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society. This paper explains the holdings in Council of Canadians with Disabilities and how litigants can use the case in the future. It then notes how the decision is in many ways a helpful, if unfortunately necessary, reminder of sensible precedent as much as it is breaking any new doctrinal ground. It is then argued that this case is part of a trend that is not only about standing: it is about using principles of civil procedure to resolve cases on their merits. There should be no expectation that such uses will necessarily result in victories for claimants whose standing is “public interest”. But there should be an expectation that merits-based resolution of civil claims will be the norm. After querying the costs analysis, it is ultimately posited that Council of Canadians with Disabilities is normatively satisfying and accords with the purposes of civil procedure.
Citation Information
Kennedy, Gerard J..
"Council of Canadians with Disabilities: Another Reminder to Resolve Cases on the Merits."
The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference
115.
(2024).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1444
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol115/iss1/2
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.
References
1 British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Council of Canadians with Disabilities, [2022] S.C.J. No. 27, 2022 SCC 27 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Council of Canadians with Disabilities"].
2 Canada (Attorney General) v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, [2012] S.C.J. No. 45, 2012 SCC 45 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Downtown Eastside"].
3 This section is based in part on § 4:16 in Gerard J. Kennedy, The Charter of Rights in Litigation: Direction from the Supreme Court of Canada (Toronto: Thomson Reuters, 2020).
4 See online: http://www.ccdonline.ca/en/about/.
5 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11 [hereinafter "Charter"].
6 Many aspects of the s. 15(1) analysis presumably would have been easy to prove given the recent decision in Ontario (Attorney General) v. G, [2020] S.C.J. No. 38, 2020 SCC 38 (S.C.C.).
7 Council of Canadians with Disabilities at para. 16.
8 Downtown Eastside at para. 20.
9 MacLaren v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [2018] B.C.J. No. 3387 at paras. 37-38, 2018 BCSC 1753 (B.C.S.C.) [hereinafter "CCD Trial"].
10 CCD Trial at paras. 41-52.
11 CCD Trial at paras. 54-97, summarized in Council of Canadians with Disabilities at para. 19.
12 CCD Trial at para. 98.
13 Council of Canadians with Disabilities v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [2020] B.C.J. No. 1326 at paras. 76-77, 2020 BCCA 241 (B.C.C.A.).
14 Council of Canadians with Disabilities v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [2020] B.C.J. No. 1326 at paras. 78-79, 2020 BCCA 241 (B.C.C.A.).
15 Council of Canadians with Disabilities v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [2020] B.C.J. No. 1326 at para. 120, 2020 BCCA 241 (B.C.C.A.).
16 Council of Canadians with Disabilities v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [2020] B.C.J. No. 1326 at para. 122, 2020 BCCA 241 (B.C.C.A.).
17 See also the description in Council of Canadians with Disabilities at paras. 22-26.
18 Council of Canadians with Disabilities at paras. 79, 96.
19 Council of Canadians with Disabilities at paras. 82-84.
20 Council of Canadians with Disabilities at para. 85.
21 Council of Canadians with Disabilities at paras. 86-94.
22 Council of Canadians with Disabilities at para. 96, applying Housen v. Nikolaisen, [2002] S.C.J. No. 31, 2002 SCC 33 (S.C.C.), with the "overriding" part of this test being well explained in Mahjoub v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2017] F.C.J. No. 726 at para. 64, 2017 FCA 157 (F.C.A.).
23 Council of Canadians with Disabilities at para. 42.
24 Council of Canadians with Disabilities at para. 41, citing Downtown Eastside at para. 2.
25 Council of Canadians with Disabilities at para. 94.
26 Council of Canadians with Disabilities at paras. 73, 109.
27 Council of Canadians with Disabilities at paras. 98-100.
28 Council of Canadians with Disabilities at paras. 101-103.
29 Council of Canadians with Disabilities at para. 104.
30 Council of Canadians with Disabilities at paras. 105-109.
31 Council of Canadians with Disabilities at para. 110.
32 Council of Canadians with Disabilities at paras. 111-116.
33 Council of Canadians with Disabilities at para. 117.
34 Council of Canadians with Disabilities at para. 118.
35 Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), [2015] S.C.J. No. 5, 2015 SCC 5 (S.C.C.).
36 Council of Canadians with Disabilities at para. 119.
37 See, e.g., Servatius v. Alberni School District No. 70, [2022] B.C.J. No. 2390 at para. 275, 2022 BCCA 421 (B.C.C.A.).
38 Thomas A. Cromwell, Locus Standi: A Commentary on the Law of Standing in Canada (Toronto: Carswell, 1986) at, e.g., 192.
39 Discussed in depth in Downtown Eastside at paras. 31-34.
40 Justice Karakatsanis made this argument, admittedly in the context of a dissent (although not seemingly dissenting on this point) in R. v. Sharma, [2022] S.C.J. No. 39 at paras. 243-249, 2022 SCC 39 (S.C.C.).
41 Downtown Eastside at paras. 31-34.
42 Canada (Minister of Justice) v. Borowski, [1981] S.C.J. No. 103, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 575 at 597 (S.C.C.).
43 R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] S.C.J. No. 1, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30 (S.C.C.).
44 Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] S.C.J. No. 14, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342 (S.C.C.).
45 Alford v. Canada (Attorney General), [2019] O.J. No. 4246, 2019 ONCA 657 (Ont. C.A.).
46 Alford v. Canada (Attorney General), [2022] O.J. No. 2234, 2022 ONSC 2911 (Ont. S.C.J.).
47 For instance, Ontario requires that a notice of constitutional question be served when government action is alleged to be unconstitutional; see, e.g., Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 109.
48 The Supreme Court of Canada's docket is rife with constitutional litigation, despite it being a small percentage of civil litigation.
49 See, e.g., the dissenting decision of Lauwers J.A. - giving particularly acute manifestation to this - in Kirby v. Hope Place Centres, [2013] O.J. No. 3148, 2013 ONCA 459 (Ont. C.A.). This is buttressed by research such as Pascoe Pleasane & Nigel J. Balmer, "Mental Health and the Experience of Social Problems Involving Rights: Findings from the United Kingdom and New Zealand" (2009) 16:1 Psychology, Psychiatry and Law. But for a contrary take, see Julie Macfarlane, "The National Self-Represented Litigants Project: Identifying and Meeting the Needs of Self-Represented Litigants - Final Report" (May 2013), online: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/lawpub/85/ at 32.
50 See, e.g., Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, [2013] S.C.J. No. 72, 2013 SCC 72 (S.C.C.).
51 See, e.g., Downtown Eastside at paras. 2, 44, 52, and 64, with "a" also being emphasized in the original headnote.
52 See, e.g., Lisa Kerr & Elin Sigurdson, "'They Want In': Sex Workers and Legitimacy Debates In the Law of Public Interest Standings" (2017) 80 S.C.L.R. (2d) 145; Jane Bailey & Angela Chiasson, "On Being 'Part of the Solution': Public Interest Standing after SWUAV SCC" (2012) 1 Canadian Journal of Poverty Law 121; Dana Phillips, "Public Interest Standing, Access to Justice, and Democracy under the Charter: Canada (AG) v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence" (2013) 22:2 Const. Forum Const. https://doi.org/10.21991/C9CD5D
53 Jane Bailey & Angela Chiasson, "On Being 'Part of the Solution': Public Interest Standing after SWUAV SCC" (2012) 1 Canadian Journal of Poverty Law 121.
54 Party autonomy that also underscores why courts generally enforce arbitration agreements: TELUS Communications Inc. v. Wellman, [2019] S.C.J. No. 19, 2019 SCC 19 (S.C.C.), citing, inter alia, J. Brian Casey, Arbitration Law of Canada: Practice and Procedure, 3d ed. (Huntington, New York: Juris Net, 2017) at 49, 51 and 195.
55 See, e.g., Janet Walker, et al., The Civil Litigation Process: Cases and Materials, 9th ed. (Toronto: Emond Montgomery, 2022) at 694, citing, e.g., Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, R. 24.
56 Janet Walker et al., The Civil Litigation Process: Cases and Materials, 9th ed. (Toronto: Emond Montgomery, 2022) at 707, citing Morbank Financial Inc. v. 0476779 BC Ltd., [2013] B.C.J. No. 2422, 2013 BCSC 2008 (B.C.S.C.).
57 Seen, for instance, with respect to vexatious litigant orders: see, e.g., Gerard J. Kennedy, "The Alberta Court of Appeal's Vexatious Litigant Order Trilogy: Respecting Legislative Supremacy, Preserving Access to the Courts, and Hopefully Not to a Fault" (2021) 58:3 Alta. L. Rev. 739. https://doi.org/10.29173/alr2646
58 See, e.g., Morbank Financial Inc. v. 0476779 BC Ltd., [2013] B.C.J. No. 2422, 2013 BCSC 2008 (B.C.S.C.).
59 Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, rule 1.04(1).
60 Gerard J. Kennedy & Lorne Sossin, "Justiciability, Access to Justice & the Development of Constitutional Law in Canada" (2017) 45(4) F.L.R. 707. https://doi.org/10.22145/flr.45.4.10
61 Hryniak v. Mauldin, [2014] S.C.J. No. 7, 2014 SCC 7 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Hryniak"].
62 See, e.g., Western Canadian Shopping Centres Inc. v. Dutton, [2000] S.C.J. No. 63, 2001 SCC 46 (S.C.C.)
the partially dissenting opinion of LaForme J.A. in Parsons v. Ontario, [2015] O.J. No. 1257 at para. 1, 2015 ONCA 158 (Ont. C.A.), vard Endean v. British Columbia, [2016] S.C.J. No. 42, 2016 SCC 42 (S.C.C.).
63 See, e.g., Mathew Good, "Access to Justice, Judicial Economy, and Behaviour Modification: Exploring the Goals of Canadian Class Actions" (2009) 47:1 Alta. L. Rev. 185; Suzanne Chiodo, The Class Actions Controversy: The Origins and Development of the Ontario Class Proceedings Act (Toronto: Irwin Law and the Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History, 2018). https://doi.org/10.29173/alr324
64 See, e.g., Brooke MacKenzie, "Effecting a Culture Shift: An Empirical Review of Ontario's Summary Judgment Reforms" (2017) 54:4 Osgoode Hall L.J. 1275; Gerard Joseph Kennedy, "Hryniak, the 2010 Amendments, and the First Stages of a Culture Shift?: The Evolution of Ontario Civil Procedure in the 2010s", Ph.D. Dissertation, Faculty of Graduate Studies, York University, January 2020. https://doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.3190
65 Atlantic Lottery Corp. Inc. v. Babstock, [2020] S.C.J. No. 19, 2020 SCC 19 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Atlantic Lottery"].
66 Stephen Pitel & Matthew Lerner, "Resolving Questions of Law: A Modern Approach to Rule 21" (2014) 43 Adv. Q. 344.
67 Gerard J. Kennedy, "Nevsun, Atlantic Lottery, and the Implications of 2020 Supreme Court of Canada Motion to Strike Decisions on Access to Justice and the Rule of Law" (2021) 72 U.N.B. L.J. 82.
68 See, e.g., Council of Canadians with Disabilities at para. 35; Trevor C.W. Farrow, "What is Access to Justice?" (2014) 51:3 Osgoode Hall L.J. 957 at 969; Sarah Buhler, "The View from Here: Access to Justice and Community Legal Clinics" (2012) 63 U.N.B. L.J. 436; Patricia Hughes, "Law Commissions and Access to Justice: What Justice Should We Be Talking About?" (2008) 46:4 Osgoode Hall L.J. 773; Roderick Macdonald, "Access to Justice in 2003: Scope, Scale and Ambitions" in J. Bass, W.A. Bogart & F.H. Zemans, eds., Access to Justice for a New Century - The Way Forward. (Toronto: Law Society of Upper Canada, 2005) 19 at 20.
69 See, e.g., Trevor C.W. Farrow, "A New Wave of Access to Justice Reform in Canada" in Adam Dodek & Alice Woolley, eds., In Search of the Ethical Lawyer: Stories from the Canadian Legal Profession (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2016) at 166-167.
70 See, e.g., Hryniak v. Mauldin, [2014] S.C.J. No. 7 at para. 26, 2014 SCC 7 (S.C.C.)
Gerard J. Kennedy, "Nevsun, Atlantic Lottery, and the Implications of 2020 Supreme Court of Canada Motion to Strike Decisions on Access to Justice and the Rule of Law" (2021) 72 U.N.B. L.J. 82.
71 K.E. Scott, "Standing in the Supreme Court - A Functional Analysis" (1973) 86 Harv. L. Rev. 645 at 674. https://doi.org/10.2307/1339943
72 Permitted, for instance as a "friend of the Court" "for the purpose of rendering assistance to the court by way of argument": Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 13.02.
73 See, e.g., Gerard J. Kennedy, "Nevsun, Atlantic Lottery, and the Implications of 2020 Supreme Court of Canada Motion to Strike Decisions on Access to Justice and the Rule of Law" (2021) 72 U.N.B. L.J. 82, extolling the virtues of the opinions of Brown J. in Atlantic Lottery at paras. 15-21, and Brown and Rowe JJ. in Nevsun Resources Ltd. v. Araya, [2020] S.C.J. No. 5 at para. 145, 2020 SCC 5 (S.C.C.) (dissenting in part).
74 Tanudjaja v. Canada (Attorney General), [2014] O.J. No. 5689, 2014 ONCA 852 (Ont. C.A.).
75 Gerard J. Kennedy & Mary Angela Rowe, "Tanudjaja v. Canada (Attorney General): Distinguishing Injusticibility and Deference on Motions to Strike" (2015) 44 Adv. Q. 391
Gerard J. Kennedy & Lorne Sossin, "Justiciability, Access to Justice & the Development of Constitutional Law in Canada" (2017) 45(4) F.L.R. 707. https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X1704500410
76 Gerard J. Kennedy & Lorne Sossin, "Justiciability, Access to Justice & the Development of Constitutional Law in Canada" (2017) 45(4) F.L.R. 707 https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X1704500410
Joanne Cave, "Retreating to Justiciability: Drawing a Fine Line Between 'Legal' and 'Moral' Rights Questions" (2020) 10(2) Western J. Leg. Stud. 1. https://doi.org/10.5206/uwojls.v10i2.9461
77 Gerard J. Kennedy & Mary Angela Rowe, "Tanudjaja v. Canada (Attorney General): Distinguishing Injusticibility and Deference on Motions to Strike" (2015) 44 Adv. Q. 391.
78 Luciuk (Guardian ad litem of) v. Canada, [2020] F.C.J. No. 1037, 2020 FC 1008 (F.C.).
79 Council of Canadians with Disabilities at para. 73.
80 Gerard J. Kennedy, "Nevsun, Atlantic Lottery, and the Implications of 2020 Supreme Court of Canada Motion to Strike Decisions on Access to Justice and the Rule of Law" (2021) 72 U.N.B. L.J. 82; Atlantic Lottery at paras. 15-21.
81 Anna J. Lund, "Navigating the Interplay Amongst Public Interest Standing, Prematurity, Abuse of Process, Facts and Evidence" (2023) 1 T.M.U. L. Rev. 32.
82 Council of Canadians with Disabilities at para. 119.
83 Canadian challenges to COVID-19 vaccination mandates have been, to the author's knowledge, largely unsuccessful, but the precise reason why is controversial and may indicate flaws in the case law: see, e.g., Colten Fehr, "Vaccine Passports and the Charter: Do they Actually Infringe Rights?" (2022) 43 Nat. J Const. L. 95.
84 See, e.g., Stéphanie Chouinard & Danielle McNabb, "Can equity-seeking groups become 'haves' in Canada's judicial system? A study of Francophone minority communities' strategic intervention in the domain of language rights", Review of Constitutional Studies (forthcoming), who have measured faith in this practice; Dorsey v. Canada (Attorney General), [2023] O.J. No. 377, 2023 ONCA 64 (Ont. C.A.), for a greater jurisprudential defence.
85 See, e.g., R. v. McGregor, [2023] S.C.J. No. 4, 2023 SCC 4 (S.C.C.), per Rowe J. (concurring); Le-Vel Brands, LLC v. Canada (Attorney General), [2023] F.C.J. No. 363, 2023 FCA 66 (F.C.A.), per Stratas J.A.
86 Avnish Nanda, "Crowdfunding: Levelling the Playing Field" LawNow Magazine (May 3, 2016), online: https://www.lawnow.org/crowdfunding-leveling-playing-field/; Manuel A. Gomez, "Crowdfunded Justice: On the Potential Benefits and Challenges of Crowdfunding as a Litigation Financing Too" (2015) 49 U.S.F. L. Rev. 307.
87 See, e.g., 1465778 Ontario Inc. v. 1122077 Ontario Ltd., [2006] O.J. No. 4248, 82 O.R. (3d) 757 (Ont. C.A.).
88 Party-and-party costs are presumptively awarded to successful civil litigants in Canada: see, e.g., Janet Walker et al., The Civil Litigation Process: Cases and Materials, 9th ed. (Toronto: Emond Montgomery, 2022), Chapter Two.
89 Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 58.06(1)(f).
90 Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 58.06(1)(e).
91 See, e.g., Glover v. Leakey, [2016] B.C.J. No. 1857, 2016 BCSC 1624 (B.C.S.C.), vard on other grounds, [2018] B.C.J. No. 251, 2018 BCCA 56 (B.C.C.A.).
92 See, e.g., 4361814 Canada Inc. v. Dalcor Inc., [2015] O.J. No. 1911 at para. 22, 2015 ONSC 2486 (Ont. S.C.J. - Master).
93 Which is a defendable view: Adil Abdulla, "Incomplete Justice: The Costs of Partial Indemnity" (2022) 38 Windsor Y.B. Access Just. 46 at 55, citing: Chris Tollefson, Darlene Gilliland & Jerry DeMarco, "Towards a Costs Jurisprudence in Public Interest Litigation" (2004) 83:2 Can. Bar Rev. 473 at 491-496; David Gourlay, "Access or Excess: Interim Costs in Okanagan" (2005) 63 U.T. Fac. L. Rev. 111 at 114; Martin Twigg, "Costs Immunity: Banishing the Bane of Costs from Public Interest Litigation" (2013) 36:1 Dal. L.J. 193 at 233; Farlow v. Hospital for Sick Children, [2009] O.J. No. 4847 (Ont. S.C.J.).
94 See, e.g., the discussion in R. v. Sullivan, [2022] S.C.J. No. 19, 2022 SCC 19 (S.C.C.).
95 R. v. Cody, [2017] S.C.J. No. 31, 2017 SCC 31 (S.C.C.) buttressed R. v. Jordan, [2016] S.C.J. No. 27, 2016 SCC 27 (S.C.C.).
96 R. v. Ipeelee, [2012] S.C.J. No. 13, 2012 SCC 13 (S.C.C.) buttressed R. v. Gladue, [1999] S.C.J. No. 19, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688 (S.C.C.), as noted by Kent Roach, "Ipeelee in the Courts of Appeal: Some Progress but Much Work Remains" (2020) 67 C.L.Q. 386.
97 Noted by, e.g., Sean Fine, "Canada's Supreme Court is off-balance as 'large and liberal' consensus on the Charter falls apart", The Globe and Mail (January 15, 2022), online: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canadas-supreme-court-is-off-balance-aslarge-and-liberal-consensus-on/; Paul-Erik Veel & Katie Glowach, "Early Insights from the Supreme Court of Canada Decisions Project", Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin LLP (April 25, 2022), online: https://litigate.com/data-driven-decisions/blog#/early-insights-fromthe-supreme-court-of-canada-decisions-project. The extent and implications of these trends can be queried, however: see, e.g., Gerard Kennedy, "Why 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' are unhelpful terms in Canadian courts", The Hub (January 21, 2022), online: https://thehub.ca/2022-01-21/liberal-conservative-are-unhelpful-terms-in-the-canadian-judicial-context/; Gerard Kennedy & Mark Mancini, "Canadian courts are not politicized in the American way", Policy Options (January 23, 2023), online: https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/january-2023/politicized-courts-us-canada/.
98 David Bamford et al., "Learning the 'How' of the Law: Teaching Procedure and Legal Education" (2013) 51:1 Osgoode Hall L.J. 45 at 56. https://doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.2605
99 See, e.g., Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 1.04(1).
