A study of U of T Law contributions to pivotal Canadian jurisprudence

Ontario Justice Education Network (OJEN)

Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia (1989)

Summary: Mark Andrews, a British citizen, wanted to practice law in Canada. Having a degree from Oxford, he met almost all the requirements to be a lawyer in British Columbia. However, at the time legislation forbade non-citizens from practicing law in the province. Andrews sued on the basis that this law violated his Section 15(1) Charter right to equality.

Decision: The Court ruled that although citizenship status was not explicitly listed as a protected group under Section 15 of the Charter, it was analogous to other enumerated grounds. This treatment was deemed discriminatory as it restricted access to opportunities, benefits, and advantages available to other members of society, thus violating the Section 15(1) Charter right to equality. By recognizing citizenship as an analogous ground, the Court opened the door for consideration of other potential grounds of discrimination not explicitly listed in the Charter. This decision underscores the Court's commitment to a broad and purposive interpretation of equality rights, ensuring the Charter's protections can evolve to address emerging forms of discrimination.

Alumni and faculty: Mary Ebert (Faculty), David Baker (LLB 1987), Richard F. Chaloner (LLB 1959).

R v Stinchcombe (1991)

Summary: A lawyer faced criminal charges, and although a witness provided statements to the police that were favorable to the accused, the Crown counsel chose not to call the witness or produce the statements from the interview. The trial judge denied the defense's application for disclosure, ruling that the Crown had no obligation to disclose these statements. 

Decision: The Court ruled that evidence held by the Crown is not the property of the Crown for securing a conviction but rather belongs to the public to ensure that justice is enacted. This includes both material the Crown intends to use and that which it does not. In contrast, the defense has no obligation to assist the prosecution. Failure to disclose evidence hampers the accused's ability to make a full answer and defense, violating the principles of justice guaranteed by Section 7 of the Charter. The Crown is therefore obligated to disclose all evidence, even if it is unfavorable to their case, as the absence of such evidence could significantly impact the trial's outcome. This ruling has aided in upholding Canadians’ right to fair trial and protects against wrongful convictions.

Alumni and faculty: Justice John Sopinka (LLB 1958), Justice John C. Major (LLB 1957).

R v Morgentaler (1988)

Summary: Dr. Morgentaler operated an abortion clinic that violated the Criminal Code at the time, which required that abortions only be performed at hospitals and required an oversight committee’s approval. He was charged with a criminal offense and challenged the constitutionality of the law, arguing that the requirement for oversight committee approval for an abortion was unconstitutional. He claimed it violated Section 7 of the Charter, which guarantees security and liberty, as it interfered with patients' bodily integrity and their ability to make life-altering decisions.

Decision: The court's decision held that this section of the Criminal Code interfered with a woman’s bodily integrity, both physically and emotionally. Forcing a woman, under threat of criminal sanction, to carry a fetus to term unless she meets specific criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations was deemed a profound interference with her body and a violation of her security of person. The court found the system regulating access to therapeutic abortions to be manifestly unfair, with regional disparities in accessibility and the potential for biased decisions by oversight committees, thus failing to align with the principles of fundamental justice. This ruling led to the decriminalization of abortion procedures and allowed for the opening of accessible abortion clinics across the country.

Alumni and faculty: Justice John Sopinka (LLB 1958), Mary Ebert (Faculty).

Vriend v Alberta (1998)

Summary: Delwin Vriend, a lab coordinator in Edmonton, Alberta, was fired due to his sexual orientation. He attempted to file a discrimination complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission but was unable to do so because sexual orientation was not explicitly included as a protected ground. Vriend then challenged the legislation in court, arguing that the omission of sexual orientation as a protected ground in the Act violated Section 15 of the Charter, which guarantees equality rights.

Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that the omission of "sexual orientation" from the Alberta Individual Rights Protection Act (IRPA) violated Section 15(1) of the Charter. The Court held that the IRPA's omission created a discriminatory distinction prohibited by the Charter, stressing that substantive equality requires considering the underlying social context and real-world effects of legislation. In reality, they noted, discrimination based on sexual orientation disproportionately affects homosexuals, not heterosexuals. This omission effectively denied homosexuals equal protection and benefit of the law. This decision was significant in advancing LGBTQ+ rights in Canada and in developing the legal concept of substantive equality. The ruling set a precedent for including sexual orientation as a protected ground in human rights legislation across Canada.

Alumni and faculty: Justice John Sopinka (LLB 1958), Justice Ian Binnie (LLB 1965), Raj Anand (LLB 1978), Vanessa L. Payne (LLB 1991), Thomas S. Kuttner (LLB 1975, LLM 1981), Lyke S.R. Kanee (LLB 1980).

Eldridge v British Columbia (Attorney General) (1997)

Summary: A group of deaf individuals challenged British Columbia's healthcare legislation. After a non-profit agency ceased providing free medical interpretation, they were left without government-funded sign language services for medical appointments. This lack of interpretation hindered their ability to communicate effectively with doctors, potentially compromising their healthcare. They argued that the failure to provide sign language interpreters in medical settings constituted discrimination based on physical disability, violating their equality rights under Section 15(1) of the Charter.

Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that the failure to provide sign language interpretation in healthcare services violated the equality rights of Deaf individuals under the Charter. The decision required British Columbia to ensure that healthcare services are accessible to Deaf patients by providing necessary interpretation. This case is significant for advancing the rights of individuals with disabilities, reinforcing that equality under the law requires not only equal treatment but also accommodation of specific needs.

Alumni and faculty: Justice John Sopinka (LLB 1958), Justice John C. Major (LLB 1957), Harvey M. Groberman (LLB 1982), Janet E. Minor (LLB 1973), Richard J.K. Stewart (LLB 1986), Katherine A. Hardie (LLB 1975), Martha Jackman (LLB 1985), David N. Baker (LLB 1987), Patricia S. Bregman (1982). 

Dunmore v Ontario (Attorney General) (1997)

Summary: Agricultural workers in Ontario challenged the province's exclusion of farm workers from the protections of labor relations laws, which prevented them from forming unions. The case centered on whether this exclusion violated their rights to freedom of association under Section 2(d) of the Charter. The Court was asked to decide whether the government had a duty to extend labor protections to a marginalized group to enable meaningful exercise of their rights.

Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that excluding agricultural workers from labor protections violated their Charter rights to freedom of association. The decision required Ontario to include farm workers in labor laws, emphasizing that the government must ensure all individuals, including marginalized groups, can meaningfully exercise their rights. This expanded labor rights and reinforcing the protection of vulnerable workers under the Charter. This judgement is significant in recognizing that the Charter may impose a duty on government to act in order to protect Charter rights.

Alumni and faculty: Justice Ian Binnie (LLB 1965), Justice John C. Major (LLB 1957), Richard J.K. Stewart (LLB 1986), Darrell L. Kloeze (LLB 1993), Roderick Wiltshire (LLB 1988), John C. Murray (LLB 1969).

R v Ewanchuk (1999)

Summary: A 17-year-old girl was sexually assaulted by a man she met under the pretense of a job opportunity. The accused, Mr. Ewanchuk, lured the young woman to his trailer with the promise of employment. Once inside, he initiated unwanted physical contact, groping her despite her clear rejection of his advances. Charged with sexual assault, Mr. Ewanchuk asserted an unfounded defense of "implied consent," claiming that the victim's continued presence in the trailer equated to consent. The trial court erroneously accepted this flawed argument, resulting in an acquittal.

Decision: The Supreme Court held that in the context of sexual assault, consent is purely subjective and focuses solely on the complainant's perspective and internal state of mind. There are only two possible conclusions: either the complainant consented or did not consent—there is no concept of “implied consent” under Canadian law. In this case, the accused was aware that the complainant did not consent on four separate occasions. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the accused re-established consent before resuming physical contact; he could not rely on a lapse of time or the complainant's silence as proof of renewed consent. This judgement is significant in its debunking of myths surrounding consent in sexual assault cases, establishing that consent must always be clearly established.

Alumni and faculty: Justice Ian Binnie (LLB 1965), Justice John C. Major (LLB 1957), Beverly Wilton (LLB 1978), Ritu Khullar (LLB 1991).

Delgamuukw v British Columbia (1997)

Summary: The appellants, all Gitksan or Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs, claimed distinct portions of 58,000 square kilometers in British Columbia. In court, this claim is presented as a demand for aboriginal title over the land in question founded in their pre-contact ownership of the land.

Decision: The Court's decision recognized for the first time that Indigenous peoples held title to their land prior to European settlement in Canada. Aboriginal title is unique in that it is inalienable—lands cannot be transferred or surrendered except to the Crown—and arises from Indigenous peoples' prior occupation of Canada, predating British sovereignty. It is a collective right held communally, not individually. To prove Aboriginal title, a group must demonstrate that the land was occupied before sovereignty, that there is continuity between present and pre-sovereignty occupation, and that occupation was exclusive at the time of sovereignty. This judgment is pivotal as it establishes the legal framework for successful Aboriginal title claims, affirming Indigenous peoples' right to exclusive use and occupation of their land and highlighting the need to adapt evidence law to include Indigenous oral histories.

Alumni and faculty: Justice John Sopinka (LLB 1958), Justice John C. Major (LLB 1957), Joe McArthur (LLB 1994), Graham Garton (LLB 1971), Murray T. Wolf (LLB 1985), Jean Teillet (LLB 1994).

Multani v Marguerite-Bourgeoys (Commission Scolaire) (2006)

Summary: A 13-year-old Sikh boy wished to carry a metal kirpan—a ceremonial dagger, which was central to his faith. The school he attended requested certain limits be placed such as requiring the kirpan be covered at all times, to which the boy’s family agreed. However this was overridden by the School Board who classified the kirpan as a weapon and wanted it banned from being brought into the school entirely. 

Decision: The Court ruled that prohibiting the kirpan violated the freedom of religion protected by Section 2(a) of the Charter. Although the school council's aim to ban weapons was reasonable, the complete prohibition of the kirpan was disproportionate to this goal. The Court determined that the outright ban was unnecessary to meet the council's aims, as the previously agreed-upon safety limitations were sufficient to achieve their objective. This approach would accommodate religious practices while addressing safety concerns. This underscores the importance of balancing religious freedom with safety concerns in multicultural Canadian society and emphasizes the need for reasonable accommodation of religious practices.

Alumni and faculty: Justice Ian Binnie (LLB 1965), Justice John C. Major (LLB 1957). 

The case: R v Marshall (1999)

Summary: Donald Marshall Jr., a Mi'kmaq man, was charged with fishing eels out of season and without a license, violating federal fishing regulations. Marshall argued that he had a treaty right, based on the 1760-61 treaties between the Mi'kmaq and the British Crown, to fish and trade for a "moderate livelihood." The key issue was whether these historic treaties recognized and protected the Mi'kmaq's right to fish and trade, superseding federal regulations.

Decision: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Marshall, affirming that the 1760-61 treaties did recognize the Mi'kmaq's right to fish and trade for a moderate livelihood, which took precedence over federal fishing regulations. This decision was significant for acknowledging and upholding Indigenous treaty rights in Canada, reinforcing the legal standing of historic treaties and shaping future relations between Indigenous peoples and the government.

Alumni and faculty: Justice Ian Binnie (LLB 1965)

Reference re: Same Sex Marriage (2004)

Summary: The Canadian government sought the Supreme Court's opinion on whether its proposed legislation to legalize same-sex marriage was consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The government asked the Court to address whether Parliament had the authority to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples and whether religious officials could be compelled to perform same-sex marriages. The key issue was the constitutionality of same-sex marriage under the Charter and the balance between equality rights and religious freedoms.

Decision: The Supreme Court affirmed that Parliament had the authority to legalize same-sex marriage and that doing so was consistent with the Charter's equality rights. However, the Court also clarified that religious officials could not be compelled to perform same-sex marriages, protecting religious freedoms. This reference was significant as it paved the way for the legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada, reinforcing the principles of equality and freedom of religion.

Alumni and faculty: Justice Rosalie Abella (LLB 1970), Justice John C. Major (LLB 1957),  Justice Binnie (LLB 1965), Cathy S. Pike (LLB 1986), Amyn Hadibhai (LLB 2000), Peter D. Lauwers (LLB 1978),  R. Douglas Elliott (LLB 1982), Vanessa Payne (LLB 1991), David M. Brown (LLB 1981), Edward Morgan (LLB 1984), Linda M. Plumpton (LLB 1994).

Chaoulli v Quebec (Attorney General) (2005)

Summary: A doctor challenged a Quebec law that prohibited private health clinics where public healthcare was available. He was joined by a patient who found the waiting times in the public healthcare system untenable. Together, they questioned the validity of this prohibition, arguing that it deprived them of access to timely medical services, thereby violating their rights under Section 7 of the Charter, which guarantees life, liberty, and security of the person. This case raised the question: Can Canadians who are willing to pay for healthcare that is not practically accessible in the public system due to long waiting lists be validly prevented from doing so by the state?

Decision: The Court held that the state cannot prevent Canadians from paying for private healthcare because delays in the public system infringe on their rights to life and liberty under Section 7 of the Charter. The Court found that denying timely healthcare for clinically significant conditions engages the protection of security of the person, as access to a waiting list is not equivalent to access to care. In cases where delays could result in death, the protection of life itself is also engaged. The prohibition of private health insurance was deemed unnecessary and unrelated to the government’s goal of maintaining a quality public health system. This ruling opened the door for private healthcare in Quebec and suggests potential changes across Canada.

Alumni and faculty: Justice Ian Binnie (LLB 1965), Justice Louis Lebel (LLM 1966), Justice Rosalie Abella (LLB 1970), Janet E. Minor (LLB 1973), Shaun Nakatsuru (LLB 1985), Guy J. Pratte (LLB 1979), Vanessa Payne (LLB 1991), Martha Jackman (LLB 1985), Professor Kent Roach (LLB 1987), Guy Davidov (LLM 1998).

Charkaoui v Canada (2008)

Summary: Adil Charkaoui, a Moroccan permanent resident in Canada, was detained in 2003 under a security certificate, which allows for detention and deportation of non-citizens deemed security threats without full disclosure of evidence. Charkaoui challenged this process, arguing it violated his Charter rights to life, liberty, security, and a fair trial. The key issue was whether the security certificate regime under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provided sufficient procedural fairness, particularly regarding evidence disclosure and the ability to contest it.

Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that the security certificate process under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act violated the Charter by failing to provide a fair hearing, particularly in terms of evidence disclosure and procedural fairness. This decision led to changes in the law, introducing "special advocates" who could access and challenge confidential evidence on behalf of the detainee. The case is significant for affirming that even in national security matters, the government must respect fundamental rights and ensure justice.

Alumni and faculty: Justice Ian Binnie (LLB 1965), Justice Rosalie Abella (LLB 1970), Lorne Waldman (LLM 2000).

Little Sisters Books and Art Emporium v Canada (2008)

Summary: A bookstore specializing in LGBTQ+ literature, challenged the Canada Border Services Agency's practice of seizing and delaying imported materials deemed obscene under the Customs Act. The bookstore argued that the seizures were discriminatory and violated their freedom of expression under Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court was asked to decide whether the customs practices were unconstitutional due to their discriminatory impact on LGBTQ+ content.

Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that while the Customs Act itself was not unconstitutional, the way it was applied to Little Sisters bookstore was discriminatory and violated freedom of expression. The Court criticized the customs officials for targeting LGBTQ+ materials and emphasized the need for fair and non-discriminatory application of the law. This case is significant for affirming the importance of freedom of expression and protection from discriminatory practices, particularly concerning marginalized communities.

Alumni and faculty: Justice Ian Binnie (LLB 1965), Christine Bartlett-Hughes (LLB 1990), R. Douglas Elliott (JD 1982), Patricia D. S. Jackson (LLB 1977), Tycho M.J. Manson (LLB 1994), Ethan Poskanzer (LLB 1977), Jill Copeland (LLB 1992).

R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd (1985)

Summary: In 1982 in Calgary, the Lord’s Day Act prohibited businesses from operating on Sundays to observe the Christian Sabbath. The owners of Big M Drug Mart, a pharmacy, challenged this law, arguing that it violated the Charter's guarantee of religious freedom, as it infringed upon their right as non-Christians, to work on Sundays if they chose.

Decision: The court's decision affirmed that the Charter protects citizens' rights to hold and manifest their religious beliefs. It also protects individuals from coercive laws like the Lord's Day Act, which, by enforcing Christian morality, imposes it on both believers and non-believers. Consequently, the Lord’s Day Act was deemed constitutionally invalid as it infringed on the guaranteed freedom of religion.

Alumni and faculty: Virginia L. Davies (LLB 1979, LLM 2003, SJD 2006), Julius A. Isaac (LLB 1958).

R v Oakes (1986)

Summary: Mr. Oakes was found with eight vials of hash oil and cash and was charged with unlawful possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking despite claiming that the drugs were for his own personal use. Mr. Oakes challenged the constitutional validity of Section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act, which imposed a burden on the accused to prove they were not in possession for the purpose of trafficking. He contended that this section violates the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Section 11(d) of the Charter.

Decision: The Court held that the reverse onus provision, which requires the accused to disprove a presumed fact on a balance of probabilities, violates the presumption of innocence under Section 11(d) of the Charter, as it allows for the possibility of a conviction despite the presence of reasonable doubt. The Court introduced the Oakes test, a tripartite framework for justifying the overriding of a constitutionally protected right or freedom. The Court concluded that the reverse-onus clause fails the proportionality aspect of the Oakes test because it is overinclusive and can lead to irrational and unfair outcomes. This test would continue to be used frequently by the courts to determine whether government can justify the enforcement of a law that limits a Charter right.

Alumni and faculty: Julius Isaac (LLB 1958), John Sopinka (LLB 1958), Sidney N. Lederman (LLB 1966).

Sauvé v Canada (Chief Electoral Officer) (2002)

Summary: Richard Sauvé was serving a substantial prison sentence for murder. At the time, the Canada Elections Act barred inmates who were serving sentences of two years or more from voting in elections. Sauvé challenged Elections Canada’s policy, claiming it disenfranchised inmates and was contrary to the Charter’s guarantee of the right to vote.

Decision: The Court ruled that denying inmates the right to vote does not align with Canadian values of individual dignity and worth. They distinguished inmate disenfranchisement from youth voting restrictions, emphasizing that inmates are denied voting rights based on perceived unworthiness, not lack of experience. The Court found that the government failed to demonstrate how disenfranchisement serves a legitimate penal purpose or relates to specific crimes. Additionally, the majority noted that this prohibition would disproportionately affect Aboriginal peoples due to their overrepresentation in prisons. This judgement established that voting rights are protected for all citizens, regardless of criminal status. To deny this would hinder rehabilitation and damage both dignity and personhood amongst inmates. 

Alumni and faculty: Justice Ian Binnie (LLB 1965).

Canada (Attorney General) v PHS Community Services Society (2011)

Summary: In Vancouver, PHS Community Services Society ran a supervised injection facility where individuals could legally inject otherwise prohibited narcotics. The site's legal operation hinged on an annual exemption issued by the federal Minister of Health. When this exemption wasn't renewed in 2008, the organization initiated legal proceedings against the Federal government.

Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that the Minister's refusal to exempt the supervised injection site violated principles of fundamental justice. Shutting down the facility would deny users access to potentially life-saving healthcare, thus infringing on their right to life, liberty, and security of the person under Section 7. Evidence showed that supervised injection sites can markedly reduce HIV and Hepatitis C cases, as well as overdose fatalities. The Court found the failure to exempt the site arbitrary, as it undermined the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act's primary aim of maintaining and promoting public health and safety. This landmark decision has enabled numerous supervised injection sites to continue operating throughout Canada.

Alumni and faculty: Justice Ian Binnie (LLB 1965), Justice Louis Lebel (LLM 1966), Justice Rosalie Abella (LLB 1970), Stephen J. Mullhall (LLB 1973), Andrew I. Nathanson (LLB 1995), Rahool P. Agarwall (JD 2006), Michale Kotrly (JD 2006), Frederick Schumann (JD 2008), Guy J. Pratte (LLB 1982).

United States v Burns (2001)

Summary: Two Canadian citizens residing in Canada were wanted for murder in Washington state, where they could face the death penalty if extradited. The Minister of Justice did not seek assurances that the death penalty would not be imposed. The case was subsequently brought before the Supreme Court of Canada to review the Minister's decision.

Decision: The Court held that extraditing individuals to the U.S. without assurances that the death penalty would not be carried out would violate the Section 7 Charter guarantee of the right to life, liberty, and security of the person. While the government had a valid objective in cooperating with the U.S. to combat crime and maintain good relations, risking execution was not necessary to achieve these goals, thus an infringement could not be justified. This case underscores the Charter's protection against capital punishment, even beyond Canada's borders.

Alumni and faculty: Justice John C. Major (LLB 1957), Justice Ian Binnie (LLB 1965), Justice Louis Lebel (LLM 1966), Clayton Ruby (LLB 1967), Jill Copeland (LLB 1992), A. Breese Davies (LLB 1998), Lorne Waldman (LLM 2000).