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.