Abstract
Sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms both play a critical role in protecting members of disadvantaged groups from the harms of state action. In R. v. Sharma, released in November 2022, a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed arguments under both sections in a claim that raised the impact on Indigenous offenders of a 2012 law that restricted the availability of conditional sentences. Our focus in this paper is on the doctrinal implications of the majority and dissenting opinions in Sharma for future section 15 and section 7 claims. We discuss four key section 15 issues raised by the majority and dissent’s differing approaches: (1) the role of substantive equality as the purpose of section 15; (2) the test for section 15 breaches, including three purported “clarifications” made by the majority related to causation, context and positive obligations; (3) the application of the section 15 test to adverse effects discrimination claims that are quantitative and qualitative; and (4) grounds and intersectionality. We also examine several issues that arose with respect to the section 7 claim in Sharma: (1) the role of various principles of fundamental justice; (2) the characterization of the purpose of the impugned law when applying those principles; and (3) the majority’s failure to consider the impact of the impugned law on Cheyenne Sharma. We conclude by exploring the interplay between sections 15 and 7 and the important issues that interplay raises for claims going forward.
Citation Information
Watson Hamilton, Jonnette and Koshan, Jennifer.
"Sharma: The Erasure of Both Group-Based Disadvantage and Individual Impact."
The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference
115.
(2024).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1448
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol115/iss1/6
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.
References
1 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"].
2 See, e.g., Jennifer Koshan, "Redressing the Harms of Government (In)Action: A Section 7 Versus Section 15 Charter Showdown" (2013) 22:1 Const. Forum 31 https://doi.org/10.21991/C9D962; C. Tess Sheldon, Karen Spector & Mercedes Perez, "Re-Centering Equality from the Inside: The Interplay Between Sections 7 and 15 of the Charter in Challenges to Psychiatric Detention" (2016) 35:2 N.J.C.L. 193. For an exception, see Ontario (Attorney General) v. G, [2020] S.C.J. No. 38, 2020 SCC 38 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Ontario v. G"].
3 R. v. Sharma, [2022] S.C.J. No. 39, 2022 SCC 39 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Sharma"]. https://doi.org/10.18280/ts.390330
4 Bill C-5: An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 2022, c. 15.
5 We do not consider s. 1 of the Charter in this piece, largely because the majority in Sharma did not.
6 Fraser v. Canada (Attorney General), [2020] S.C.J. No. 28, 2020 SCC 28 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Fraser"]; R. v. P. (C.), [2021] S.C.J. No. 19, 2021 SCC 19 (S.C.C.).
7 Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, [2013] 3 S.C.J. No. 72, 2013 SCC 72 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Bedford"].
8 See Debra Parkes & Sonia Lawrence, "R. v. Sharma: Reckoning with Destabilizing Truths in Constitutional Equality Adjudication", in this volume.
9 See, e.g., Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2023] S.C.J. No. 17, 2023 SCC 17 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Canadian Council for Refugees"].
10 Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.
11 S.C. 2012, c. 1, s. 34. The impugned provisions were s. 742.1(c), excluding indictable offences with a maximum term of imprisonment of 14 years or life, and s. 742.1(e)(ii), excluding drug importing offences with a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years.
12 R. v. Sharma, [2018] O.J. No. 909 at paras. 20, 26, 2018 ONSC 1141 (Ont. S.C.J.), citing the evidence of expert witness Carmela Murdocca.
13 R. v. Sharma, [2018] O.J. No. 909 at para. 257, 2018 ONSC 1141 (Ont. S.C.J.).
14 R. v. Sharma, [2020] O.J. No. 3183 at paras. 152, 174, 2020 ONCA 478 (Ont. C.A.).
15 R. v. Sharma, [2020] O.J. No. 3183 at para. 103, 2020 ONCA 478 (Ont. C.A.).
16 Sharma at para. 73.
17 Sharma at paras. 28, 81.
18 Sharma at para. 111.
19 Sharma at paras. 118, 179.
20 Sharma at paras. 118, 184. See also R. v. Gladue, [1999] S.C.J. No. 19, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Gladue"].
21 Sharma at paras. 255-259.
22 Sharma at paras. 37-38.
23 Fraser at paras. 40 and 42. But see R. v. Barton, [2019] S.C.J. No. 33, 2019 SCC 33 (S.C.C.) at para. 202, where Moldaver J., speaking on behalf of Côté, Brown and Rowe JJ., outlined the "core concepts upon which our justice system rests, including substantive equality, which represents the animating norm of s. 15 of the Charter".
24 Fraser at paras. 29-36, 40, 42, 47-48. See also Ontario (Attorney General) v. G, [2020] S.C.J. No. 38, 2020 SCC 38 at paras. 43-47, 55-56 (S.C.C.), Karakatsanis J. for the majority, which Brown and Côté JJ., dissenting in part, critiqued at para. 223, using scare quotes around "substantive equality".
25 Law Society British Columbia v. Andrews, [1989] S.C.J. No. 6, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Andrews"].
26 See, e.g., Carissima Mathen, "Equality Before the Charter: Reflections on Fraser v. Canada" (2022) 104 S.C.L.R. (2d) 105. https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1428
27 Fraser at paras. 216, 219, 221.
28 Sharma at para. 38.
29 Sharma at para. 187; see also paras. 196 and 203.
30 Sharma at para. 28 (citations omitted). For the formulation of the test, the majority cited three of the Court's most recent s. 15(1) decisions: Fraser at para. 27; R. v. P. (C.), [2021] S.C.J. No. 19 at paras. 56 and 141, 2021 SCC 19 (S.C.C.); and Kahkewistahaw First Nation v. Taypotat, [2015] S.C.J. No. 30 at paras. 19-20, 2015 SCC 30 (S.C.C.). They failed to mention that the test was formulated differently in Taypotat, where step two included consideration of "whether the impugned law fails to respond to the actual capacities and needs of the members of the group".
31 Sharma at para. 38.
32 Sharma at para. 29.
33 Sharma at para. 30.
34 Sharma at para. 31 (emphasis in original). The majority did concede that separation is not always possible because both steps consider the impact of the impugned provision on the claimant's group and there might be an overlap in evidence: Sharma at para. 30.
35 See, e.g., Quebec (Attorney General) v. Alliance du personnel professionnel et technique de la santé et des services sociaux, [2018] S.C.J. No. 17 at para. 71, 2018 SCC 17 (S.C.C.), where Côté, Brown and Rowe JJ. (dissenting) collapsed the two steps, stating with little explanation that "in the case at bar, the disadvantageous or prejudicial nature of the law, which is as a general rule considered at the second step of the s. 15(1) analysis, must instead be examined at the first step".
36 Sharma at para. 32 (emphasis in original).
37 Sharma at paras. 33-34. For a review of the changes to the s. 15(1) test over time, see Jennifer Koshan & Jonnette Watson Hamilton, "The Continual Reinvention of Section 15 of the Charter" (2013) 64 U.N.B.L.J. 19.
38 Sharma at para. 33. The majority introduced uncertainty by failing to make it clear whether the "clarifications" applied only to cases of adverse effects discrimination or to cases of direct discrimination as well.
39 Sharma at para. 204.
40 Sharma at para. 206.
41 The dissent also accused the majority of undermining interveners and their use of social context evidence: Sharma at para. 205. We do not address those points here.
42 See, e.g., Symes v. Canada, [1993] S.C.J. No. 131, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 695 (S.C.C.); Thibaudeau v. Canada, [1995] S.C.J. No. 42, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 627 (S.C.C.); Health Services and Support - Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v. British Columbia, [2007] S.C.J. No. 27, 2007 SCC 27 (S.C.C.).
43 Sharma at para. 3. See also Sharma at paras. 36, 73-74.
44 Fraser at para. 175 (citations omitted).
45 Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, [2013] 3 S.C.J. No. 72 at paras. 75-76, 2013 SCC 72 (S.C.C.), per McLachlin C.J.C.
46 Fraser at para. 71.
47 Sharma at para. 49.
48 Sharma at para. 69.
49 Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1999] S.C.J. No. 12 at para. 88, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497 (S.C.C.), per Iacobucci J.
50 Sharma at paras. 70-71.
51 Sharma at para. 74. See also Sharma at para. 76.
52 Sharma at para. 205, citing Bliss v. Canada (Attorney General), [1978] S.C.J. No. 81, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 183 (S.C.C.).
53 Sharma at para. 211.
54 Like Abella J., Kasirer J. confined considerations of government context to s. 1 of the Charter in R. v. P. (C.), [2021] S.C.J. No. 19, 2021 SCC 19 (S.C.C.). However, he found the impugned provision could be justified under s. 1, whereas Abella J. found that it could not.
55 Sharma at para. 196, quoting Withler v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] S.C.J. No. 12 at para. 93, 2011 SCC 12 (S.C.C.).
56 Fraser at paras. 42 and 57, quoting Withler v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] S.C.J. No. 12 at para. 43, 2011 SCC 12 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Withler"].
57 Fraser at paras. 57, 42.
58 See, e.g., Fay Faraday, "The Elephant in the Room and Straw Men on Fire" (2021) 30:2 Const. Forum 15. https://doi.org/10.21991/cf29419; Sonia Lawrence, "Critical Reflections on Fraser: What Equality Are We Seeking?" (2021) 30:2 Const. Forum 43 https://doi.org/10.21991/cf29421; Joshua Sealy Harrington, "The Alchemy of Equality Rights" (2021) 30:2 Const. Forum 53. https://doi.org/10.21991/cf29422
59 Withler v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] S.C.J. No. 12, 2011 SCC 12 (S.C.C.).
60 Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c. 1.
61 R. v. P. (C.), [2021] S.C.J. No. 19 at para. 145, 2021 SCC 19 (S.C.C.).
62 R. v. P. (C.), [2021] S.C.J. No. 19 at para. 57, 2021 SCC 19 (S.C.C.). Justice Côté did not consider the Charter issue.
63 Sharma at para. 60.
64 Sharma at para. 61.
65 Sharma at para. 205.
66 Jennifer Koshan & Jonnette Watson Hamilton, "Meaningless Mantra: Substantive Equality after Withler" (2011) 16 Rev. Const. Stud. 31. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1928032
67 For a comment on R. v. P. (C.), [2021] S.C.J. No. 19, 2021 SCC 19 (S.C.C.), see Lisa M. Kelly, "Judging Youth Time" (2023) 108 S.C.L.R. (2d) 85. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ASM.0000768776.27495.1f
68 Sharma at para. 57 (emphasis added), citing Withler v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] S.C.J. No. 12 at para. 38, 2011 SCC 12 (S.C.C.).
69 Fraser at para. 78; see also Sharma at para. 53.
70 Sharma at para. 63.
71 Webcast of the hearing in R. v. Sharma, Supreme Court of Canada, online: https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcastview-webdiffusionvue-eng.aspx?cas=39346&id=2022/2022-03-23--39346&date=2022-03-23 (see, e.g., 1:45:14, 1:51:13 (Moldaver J.); 1:49:40 (Rowe J.); 2:08:25 (Brown J.)).
72 Fraser at para. 207.
73 Factum of David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights in R. v. Sharma, online: Supreme Court of Canada, https://www.scc-csc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/39346/FM130_Intervener_David-Asper-Centre-for-Constitutional-Rights.pdf at para. 4.
74 Canada, Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Bridging the Cultural Divide: A Report on Aboriginal People and Criminal Justice in Canada (Ottawa: Canada Communication Group, 1996); Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2015); National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, Reclaiming Power and Place: The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, Volume 1 a (2019).
75 Factum of the Intervener Native Women's Association in R. v. Sharma, online: Supreme Court of Canada, https://www.scc-csc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/39346/FM210_Intervener_Ontario-Native-Women's-Association.pdf at para. 9.
76 Sharma at para. 64, quoting Quebec (Attorney General) v. Alliance du personnel professionnel et technique de la santé et des services sociaux, [2018] S.C.J. No. 17 at para. 4, 2018 SCC 17 (S.C.C.), per Abella J.
77 Sharma at para. 65.
78 See, e.g., Factum of the Intervener Native Women's Association in R. v. Sharma, online: Supreme Court of Canada, https://www.scc-csc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/39346/FM210_Intervener_Ontario-Native-Women's-Association.pdf at paras. 4, 10, and 13.
79 Sharma at paras. 8, 9 and 73.
80 Quebec (Attorney General) v. Alliance du personnel professionnel et technique de la santé et des services sociaux, [2018] S.C.J. No. 17 at para. 64, 2018 SCC 17 (S.C.C.); Centrale des syndicats du Québec v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2018] S.C.J. No. 18 at para. 146, 2018 SCC 18 (S.C.C.); Fraser at para. 145.
81 Sharma at para. 71.
82 Sharma at para. 82.
83 Sharma at para. 82.
84 Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1997] S.C.J. No. 86, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624 (S.C.C.); Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] S.C.J. No. 29, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493 (S.C.C.); Fraser.
85 For a review, see Jonnette Watson Hamilton & Jennifer Koshan, "Adverse Impact: The Supreme Court's Approach to Adverse Effects Discrimination under Section 15 of the Charter" (2015) 19 Rev. Const. Stud. 191.
86 Fraser at para. 31, quoting Fay Faraday, "One Step Forward, Two Steps Back? Substantive Equality, Systemic Discrimination and Pay Equity at the Supreme Court of Canada" (2020) 94 S.C.L.R. (2d) 301 at 310. https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1385
87 Fraser at para. 56.
88 Fraser at paras. 60-61. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2761805
89 Fraser at paras. 34, 46, 53, 54.
90 Melina Buckley & Fiona Sampson, "LEAF and the Supreme Court of Canada Appeal of Health Services and Support-Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v. British Columbia" (2005) 17:2 C.J.W.L. 473 at 497.
91 Sharma at paras. 31, 32, 35, 40-50.
92 Sharma at para. 40.
93 Sharma at paras. 66-67.
94 R. v. Sharma, [2020] O.J. No. 3183 at para. 103, 2020 ONCA 478 (Ont. C.A.). See also Amy L. Alberton et al., "Structural Violence Perpetrated Against Indigenous Peoples in Canadian Criminal Courts: Meta-Analytic Evidence of Longstanding Sentencing Inequities" (2021) 22:1 Critical Social Work 1. https://doi.org/10.22329/csw.v22i1.6896
95 Sharma at para. 71.
96 Sharma at paras. 71, 79. https://doi.org/10.2307/3351457
97 Sharma at para. 78.
98 Many interveners in Sharma argued a "duty to accommodate" Indigenous offenders in sentencing. See, e.g., Factum of the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations in R. v. Sharma, online: Supreme Court of Canada, https://www.scc-csc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/39346/FM080_Intervener_Federation-of-Sovereign-Indigenous-Nations.pdf (at para. 2 et seq.).
99 For further discussion see Jennifer Koshan & Jonnette Watson Hamilton, "Clarifications or Wholesale Revisions? The Last Five Years of Equality Jurisprudence at the Supreme Court of Canada" (2024) 114 S.C.L.R. (2d) 15.
100 See Sonia Lawrence, "'That Admittedly Unattainable Ideal': Adverse Impact and Race under Section 15" (2017) Law Society of Upper Canada, Special Lectures 2017: Canada at 150: The Charter and the Constitution 547 at 548; Joshua Sealy-Harrington, "The Charter of Whites: Systemic Racism and Critical Race Equality in Canada" in Emmett Macfarlane & Kate Puddister, eds., The Constitution Act, 1982: 40 Years Later (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2022) 234. https://doi.org/10.59962/9780774867931-015
101 Sharma at para. 227; see more generally paras. 225-229.
102 Sharma at para. 227.
103 Sharma at para. 228.
104 Sharma at para. 236. See also Alana Robert, "How the Dissent in Sharma Opens the Door to Indigenize the Section 15(1) Charter Analysis", in this volume.
105 Sharma at paras. 118, 209, per Karakatsanis J.
106 Corbiere v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs), [1999] S.C.J. No. 24 [1999] 2 S.C.R. 203 (S.C.C.), per McLachlin and Bastarache JJ.; Kahkewistahaw First Nation v. Taypotat, [2015] S.C.J. No. 30 at paras. 26-27, 2015 SCC 30 (S.C.C.), per Abella J.
107 R. v. Kapp, [2008] 2 S.C.J. No. 42, 2008 SCC 41 (S.C.C.). For a critique, see Sonia Lawrence, "R. v. Kapp" (2018) 30:2 C.J.W.L. 268. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjwl.30.2.04
108 See, e.g., Factum of the Ontario Native Women's Association in R. v. Sharma, online: Supreme Court of Canada, https://www.scc-csc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/39346/FM210_Intervener_Ontario-Native-Women's-Association.pdf.
109 Sharma at paras. 17-18.
110 Sharma at para. 196.
111 Sharma at paras. 114, 125, 127, 234-236.
112 R. v. P. (C.), [2021] S.C.J. No. 19 at para. 88, 2021 SCC 19 (S.C.C.).
113 See, e.g., Jennifer Koshan, "Intersections and Roads Untravelled: Sex and Family Status in Fraser v. Canada" (2021) 30:2 Const. Forum 29. https://doi.org/10.21991/cf29420
114 Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, [2013] 3 S.C.J. No. 72 at para. 96, 2013 SCC 72 (S.C.C.), per McLachlin C.J.C.
115 See, e.g., Andrew Menchynski & Jill Presser, "A Withering Instrumentality: The Negative Implications of R. v. Safarzadeh-Markhali and other Recent Section 7 Jurisprudence" (2019) 81 S.C.L.R. (2d) 75 at 81-82. https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1348
116 Nader R. Hasan, "Three Theories of 'Principles of Fundamental Justice'" (2013) 63 S.C.L.R. (2d) 339 at 369. https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1273
117 Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, [2013] 3 S.C.J. No. 72 at para. 123, 2013 SCC 72 (S.C.C.).
118 Nader R. Hasan, "Three Theories of 'Principles of Fundamental Justice'" (2013) 63 S.C.L.R. (2d) 339 at 371. https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1273
119 Sharma at para. 85.
120 Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, [2013] 3 S.C.J. No. 72 at para. 112, 2013 SCC 72 (S.C.C.).
121 Sharma at para. 101.
122 Sharma at paras. 157, 161.
123 R. v. Moriarity, [2015] S.C.J. No. 55 at paras. 28, 46, 2015 SCC 15 (S.C.C.), per Cromwell J.
124 R. v. Safarzadeh-Markhali, [2016] 1 S.C.J. No. 14 at para. 34, 2016 SCC 14 (S.C.C.), per McLachlin C.J.C.; see also Sharma at para. 157.
125 Sharma also raises inconsistency concerns when compared to R. v. Ndhlovu, [2022] S.C.J. No. 38, 2022 SCC 38 (S.C.C.), released one week earlier. In Ndhlovu, a majority struck down elements of the sex offender registry under s. 7 of the Charter as overbroad limitations on liberty. Justice Rowe was in the majority in both Ndhlovu and Sharma, and those results are difficult to reconcile.
126 R. v. Moriarity, [2015] S.C.J. No. 55 at paras. 28-29, 2015 SCC 15 (S.C.C.).
127 Sharma at para. 105.
128 Sharma at para. 108.
129 Sharma at para. 108.
130 Sharma at para. 164.
131 Sharma at para. 164.
132 Sharma at para. 172.
133 Sharma at para. 162.
134 Sharma at para. 178.
135 R. v. Parranto, [2021] S.C.J. No. 46 at paras. 4, 20, 40, 46, 2021 SCC 46 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.51202/0933-3754-2021-3-046-3
136 Sharma at para. 174.
137 See, e.g., Marie Manikis, "Towards Accountability and Fairness for Aboriginal People: The Recognition of Gladue as a Principle of Fundamental Justice That Applies to Prosecutors" (2016) 21:1 Can. Crim. L. Rev. 173 at 183-184
Andrew Flavelle Martin, "Gladue at Twenty: Gladue Principles in the Professional Discipline of Indigenous Lawyers" (2020) 4:1 Lakehead L.J. 20 at 24.
138 Factum of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies in R. v. Sharma, online: Supreme Court of Canada https://www.scc-csc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/39346/FM220_Intervener_Canadian-Association-of-Elizabeth-Fry-Societes.pdf at paras. 3, 19-25.
139 See, e.g., R. v. Bissonnette, [2022] S.C.J. No. 23 at para. 52, 2022 SCC 23 (S.C.C.).
140 R. v. Hilbach, [2023] S.C.J. No. 3 at para. 44, 2023 SCC 3 (S.C.C.).
141 See, e.g., Factum of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs in R. v. Sharma, online: Supreme Court of Canada, https://www.scc-csc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/39346/FM190_Intervener_Assembly-of-Manitoba-Chiefs.pdf at paras. 17-26.
142 Sharma at paras. 9, 73.
143 Sharma at para. 248.
144 See, e.g., Kerri A. Froc, "Constitutional Coalescence: Substantive Equality as a Principle of Fundamental Justice" (2010) 42 Ottawa L. Rev. 411; Mary Eberts & Kim Stanton, "The Disappearance of the Four Equality Rights and Systemic Discrimination from Canadian Equality Jurisprudence" (2018) 38 N.J.C.L. 89 at 113-115.
145 See, e.g., Factum of the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund in R. v. Sharma, online: Supreme Court of Canada, https://www.scc-csc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/39346/FM060_Intervener_Women's-Legal-Education-Fund.pdf at paras. 3, 13, 14-18; Sonia Lawrence & Debra Parkes, "R. v. Turtle: Substantive Equality Touches Down in Treaty 5 Territory" (2021) 66 C.R. (7th) 430 at 443-444.
146 Andrew Menchynski & Jill Presser, "A Withering Instrumentality: The Negative Implications of R. v. Safarzadeh-Markhali and other Recent Section 7 Jurisprudence" (2019) 81 S.C.L.R. (2d) 75 at note 14. https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1348
147 Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2023] S.C.J. No. 17, 2023 SCC 17 (S.C.C.).
148 Jennifer Koshan & Jonnette Watson Hamilton, "The Continual Reinvention of Section 15 of the Charter" (2013) 64 U.N.B.L.J. 19.
149 See also Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2023] S.C.J. No. 17, 2023 SCC 17 (S.C.C.).
150 Gosselin v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2002] S.C.J. No. 85, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 429 (S.C.C.).
151 For critiques of how thin interpretations of s. 15 reduce its protection to s. 7 type harms, or steer claimants to s. 7 claims, see Mary Eberts & Kim Stanton, "The Disappearance of the Four Equality Rights and Systemic Discrimination from Canadian Equality Jurisprudence" (2018) 38 N.J.C.L. 89 at 113-115; Jennifer Koshan, "Redressing the Harms of Government (In)Action: A Section 7 Versus Section 15 Charter Showdown" (2013) 22:1 Const. Forum 31 at 41. https://doi.org/10.21991/C9D962
152 Joint Factum of David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights, West Coast Legal Education and Action Fund, and Women's Coast Legal Education and Action Fund in Canadian Council for Refugees, et al. v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, et al., online: Supreme Court of Canada, https://www.scc-csc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/39749/FM040_Intervener_David-Asper-Centre-for-Constitutional-Rights-et-al.pdf. Jennifer Koshan was a member of the case committee in this intervention.
153 Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2023] S.C.J. No. 17 at para. 180, 2023 SCC 17 (S.C.C.), per Kasirer J. Although the Court rejected the s. 7 claim, it left it open to refugee claimants to argue that the STCA violates their s. 7 rights in individual cases (at para. 121).
154 See, e.g., C. Tess Sheldon, Karen R. Spector & Mercedes Perez, "Re-Centering Equality: The Interplay Between Sections 7 and 15 of the Charter in Challenges to Psychiatric Detention" (2016) 35 N.J.C.L. 193.
