Legal Cases 2011

Her Majesty the Queen v. Frank Ralph Ladue

Mr. Ladue, an Aboriginal man, was sentenced to three years imprisonment for breaching a long term supervision order. At issue is the interpretation of section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code which requires a consideration of reasonable alternatives to imprisonment for all prisoners, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders. The case deals with the appropriate consideration of the principles set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Ladue on sentencing Aboriginal offenders.

This case is an appeal from the BC Court of Appeal. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada on October 17, 2011. The BCCLA was granted leave to intervene in this case. The BCCLA argued that the trial judge failed to consider alternatives to imprisonment, the unique position of Aboriginal people given their increasing overrepresentation in the criminal justice system and the importance of considering restorative and rehabilitative principles in the sentencing all offenders.

Argument

The BCCLA is represented by Kent Roach of the University of Toronto and Kelly Doctor of Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP.

Supreme Court of Canada

Her Majesty the Queen v. Clato Lual Mabior

This case concerns the criminalization of HIV transmission and exposure under the Criminal Code. At issue are citizens’ and patients’ rights to privacy over health status, autonomy over personal life, freedom from discrimination and whether so-called morality offences are the most appropriate way to protect the public.

The BCCLA was granted leave to intervene in the case. The BCCLA argued that the current legal test set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Cuerrier of “significant risk of serious bodily harm” has led to uncertainty and inconsistency in the criminal law. The BCCLA also argued that sexually transmitted infections should be treated primarily as a public health issue and that the criminalization of HIV transmission is already addressed by other provisions of the Criminal Code. It also argued that if the current legal test is not set aside, it should be refined. The hearing is scheduled for February 8, 2012.

Argument

The BCCLA is represented by Michael Feder and Angela Juba of McCarthy Tétrault LLP.

Supreme Court of Canada

Wayne Penner v. Regional Municipality of Niagara Regional Police Services Board, et al.

This case concerns the doctrine of issue estoppel and whether it should apply to findings of a police discipline hearing which would prohibit an individual complainant from seeking compensation from the courts for alleged police misconduct. This case raises the question of whether the findings of a police disciplinary tribunal prevent the applicant suing the police in a civil action for unlawful arrest and unreasonable force. At issue is access to justice, and whether police-run police disciplinary proceedings can replace the role of the court.

The BCCLA was granted leave to intervene in this case. The BCCLA argued that the issue estoppel rule should be interpreted so that it respect’s a person’s right to access to justice by having their civil and constitutional rights claims heard by a court. The BCCLA also argued that it is in the public interest to ensure the judiciary remains an independent arbiter of allegations of violations against branches of the government, including the police.

Argument

The BCCLA is represented by Robert D. Holmes, Q.C. of Holmes & King, Barristers & Solicitors.

Supreme Court of Canada

Her Majesty the Queen v. Yat Fung Albert Tse, et al

This case concerns the constitutionality of warrantless wiretaps conducted by police under section 184.4 of the Criminal Code.

At issue is whether it is a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for police to use wiretaps to intercept private communications in urgent situations without judicial authorization. Section 184.4 of the Criminal Code authorizes a broad group of persons to perform highly invasive warrantless searches without judicial oversight or other accountability mechanisms.

The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada on November 18, 2011. The BCCLA was granted leave to intervene in the case. The BCCLA argued that the provision is far too broad and clear limits are necessary to ensure accountability. The BCCLA argued that only police officers should be allowed to conduct the wiretaps; currently, the section allows everyone from mayors to fisheries guardians to conduct the invasive surveillance. The BCCLA also argued that the length of time of a wiretap should be limited to 24 hours.

The BCCLA is represented by Roy W. Millen, Peter W. Hogg, Q.C. and Laura Cundari of Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP.

Supreme Court of Canada

Bedford v. Canada (Attorney General)

This case was brought by a group of sex workers who challenged the criminal prohibitions concerning prostitution. The BCCLA has long-advocated for sensible and compassionate legal response to issues surrounding sexuality and sexual identity. Sex workers are comprised of a cross section of some of the most disadvantaged members of society (women, racial minorities, sexual minorities, the poor).

The case was heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal on June 16, 2011. The BCCLA was granted leave to intervene in this case. The BCCLA argued that while there are ways of conducting prostitution that could significantly reduce the risk of violence towards prostitutes, the challenged provisions make many of these safety-enhancing methods illegal. Thus, the criminal prohibitions violate s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, depriving sex workers of liberty and security of the person.

Argument

The BCCLA was represented by Brent Olthuis of Hunter Litigation Chambers and Megan Vis-Dunbar, Barrister and Solicitor.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society and Sheryl Kiselback v. The Attorney General of Canada

This case involves a constitutional challenge to the Criminal Code provisions making adult prostitution illegal. A trial was set for February 2009, but the BC Supreme Court determined that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the claim. SWUAV appealed to the B.C. Court of Appeal on the issue of public interest standing. The BCCLA argued that the Court should widen the current test for granting public interest standing to bring Canada in line with other jurisdictions and to promote access to justice. The matter has now been appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Argument

Supreme Court of Canada

Carter et al. v. Attorney General of Canada

The BCCLA filed a lawsuit in April 2011 to challenge the laws that make it a criminal offense to assist seriously and incurably ill individuals to die with dignity. The legal challenge will seek to allow seriously and incurably ill, mentally competent adults the right to receive medical assistance to hasten death under certain specific safeguards.

Legal Cases 2010

Frank Paul Inquiry - Final Phase

Final Submissions

This public inquiry is investigating the death of Mr. Frank Paul, a 47 year-old homeless Mi'kmaq man who died in an alley after being left there by police in December 1998. The final phase of the Frank Paul inquiry has examined the response of the Criminal Justice Branch of the Ministry of Attorney General to the death of Frank Paul. The BCCLA has proposed that in order to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system, the Commission should recommend a new approach for assessing whether charges should be laid in cases in which the police are involved or implicated.

YPY v. University of Victoria

The BCCLA has been supporting a student group at the University of Victoria that is opposed to abortion. The group has been delisted as a campus organization as a result of posters they put up and a forum they held on the issue. The BCCLA helped the organization access legal advice and file legal challenge. After the student group filed the legal challenge in BC Supreme Court, the group was reinstated as a student club in good standing. The group was also repaid all the funding wrongly denied it in the past. The parties have agreed that the lawsuit will stand in abeyance rather than be withdrawn, with the BCCLA appearing as an intervener in the event that it is necessary to proceed with the case.

Inglis et al v. The Minister of Public Safety

This case is a challenge brought by five women and two infants against the warden’s decision at the Alouette Correctional Centre for Women (ACCW) to terminate the institution’s mother-infant program. As a result of the cancellation, infants of single mothers who are incarcerated at ACCW are apprehended by the state. This has significant effects on both the mothers and the infants. Infants are deprived of the possibility of being breast fed by their mothers, which has negative implications for their health. They are also deprived of the opportunity to bond with their mothers, which negatively impacts their psychological integrity and development.

The BCCLA will seek leave to intervene in the case. If granted leave to intervene, the BCCLA will argue that removing children from their mother’s care has serious implications for the section 7 Charter rights of both mothers and children. Section 15 equality rights are also implicated in this context, due to the disproportionate impact of the cancellation on women and Aboriginal mothers, children and communities.

BCCLA v.The Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General

Submission

Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia

Shaw and Westergaard Thorpe v. City of Vancouver

In the lead-up to the 2010 Olympics, the City of Vancouver passed bylaws stating that only “celebratory” signs that increased positive feelings and festive spirit around the Olympics would be permitted in large areas of the downtown core. The BCCLA assisted two activists in bringing a lawsuit to challenge the bylaws. After the City revised the bylaw to permit individuals to carry non-commercial signs in the designated areas, the litigants agreed to withdraw the suit.

Jason Gratl of Gratl and Associates was counsel on the case.

MJCK v. The Minister of Justice for Canada

This case concerns the proposed extradition of M.J.C.K. , the appellant, a Canadian citizen, to Thailand, a country with the death penalty. The Appellant was granted leave to appeal the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the BCCLA was granted leave to intervene in the matter.

At issue in the case was whether the fact that a requesting State cannot provide a death penalty assurance constitutes “exceptional circumstances” negating the Minister of Justice’s legal obligations of having to request such assurances from that State.

The SCC dismissed the case because the Thai government has provided the Minister with a death penalty assurance. The appeal was dismissed subject to the Minister's undertaking not to act on his outstanding surrender order. Once the appellant has had an opportunity to make further submissions on the effectiveness of the death penalty assurance recently provided by Thailand, the Minister will decide whether to still surrender him to that country. If the Minister decides to go ahead with the surrender, his decision will again be subject to judicial review by the B.C. Court of Appeal. The BCCLA is currently maintaining a watching brief on the case.

The BCCLA are represented by David E. Crossin, Q.C. of Sugden, McFee & Roos LLP and Fritz Gaerdes of Alexander Holburn Beaudin & Lang LLP. Nadia Effendi of Border Ladner Gervais LLP provided pro bono agency services.

Abdelrazik et al. v. Attorney General of Canada

Notice of application

Abousfian Abdelrazik is the only Canadian citizen on the UN Security Council 1267 no-fly list. His listing automatically subjects him to domestic Canadian legislation that freezes his assets and leaves him all but unemployable. Yet Mr. Abdelrazik faces no criminal charges either in Canada or abroad. In fact he has been cleared of any criminal involvement by both the RCMP and CSIS.

The BCCLA has joined Mr. Abdelrazik in challenging the Canadian legislation that implements the 1267 list. In a lawsuit filed in federal court, the BCCLA is arguing that the legislation is extra-jurisdictional and in violation of the Charter rights of liberty, security of person and freedom of association.

The BCCLA is represented by Paul Champ of Champ and Associates, and Carmen Cheung of the BCCLA.

Federal Court of Canada

Afghanistan Public Interest Hearings

The BCCLA continues its work before the Military Police Complaints Commission as part of the public interest investigation into the handling of detainees by Canadian Forces in Afghanistan. The BCCLA filed complaints with the MPCC in 2007 and 2008 voicing its concerns that the Military Police were transferring detainees to Afghan authorities despite evidence that there was likelihood they would be tortured.

The BCCLA also filed a complaint that the Military Police failed to investigate senior Canadian Forces officers who ordered the transfers. Both charges suggest complicity in torture and have serious ramifications under both Canadian and international humanitarian law. Hearings pursuant to these complaints are ongoing.

The BCCLA is represented by Paul Champ and Khalid Elgazar of Champ and Associates, as well as our own Grace Pastine and Carmen Cheung.

Arar v. Ashcroft et al.

Final brief

The BCCLA supported Maher Arar’s U.S. civil suit against American officials for their role in his rendition and torture in Syria. We argued that Mr. Arar is entitled to a remedy under U.S. law for the serious human rights violations he experienced.

On June 14, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider Mr. Arar’s claims. While unsurprising, the decision represents another disappointing setback for holding U.S. officials accountable for illegal acts.

The BCCLA was represented by Russell Cohen, Rene Kathawala, William Lin and Justin Bagdady of Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe.

Crookes v. Newton

Argument

In this case the Supreme Court of Canada will consider whether hyperlinking to defamatory material – defamatory material hosted by someone else, elsewhere on the internet – amounts to publication for the purposes of a claim in defamation. The BCCLA will argue, if it is granted leave to intervene, that hyperlinking is not publication and that treating it as if it were would radically discourage the interlinking that gives the internet its vitality. Hearings are set to begin in December 2010.

Paul Schabas and Roy Millen of Blake, Cassels & Graydon are representing the BCCLA.

Supreme Court of Canada

Warman v. Lemire

Argument

This case concerns the constitutionality of the hate speech provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The BCCLA has been granted leave as an intervener and will argue before the Federal Court that extending hate speech provisions to the internet would unduly infringe freedom of expression. The BCCLA takes the position that the internet is a democratic medium where hateful expression should be published so as to provide a forum for its refutation and denunciation.

The BCCLA will be represented by Jason Gratl of Gratl and Associates.

R. v. Cornell

The BCCLA argued in the Supreme Court of Canada that the Calgary Police Services used excessive force and violated the “knock and announce” rule when its Tactical Enforcement Unit used a battering ram to break down Ms. Cornell’s door and charged in, officers’ guns drawn and faces covered by ski masks. The Supreme Court of Canada will determine whether these tactics ran afoul of Charter prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure. The Court has reserved judgment.

The BCCLA is represented by Daniel Webster, Q.C. and Ryan Dalziel of Bull, Housser & Tupper LLP.

Supreme Court of Canada

PHS Community Services Society v. Canada
(Attorney General)

This case concerns Insite, a supervised injection facility in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver. The operation of Insite has prevented overdose deaths, reduced the suffering of addicts and lessened the spread of HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C. The BC Court of Appeal granted the facility a permanent exemption from prosecution under federal drug laws, finding that provincial authority over health care could allow it to trump federal criminal powers.

BC Court of Appeal

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, et al. v. Attorney General of Quebec, et al.

Argument

This case concerns the constitutionality of restrictions on media access to Quebec courts imposed by Quebec judges and Quebec’s Minister of Justice. The rules ban the broadcast of court recordings, limit interviews to designated areas, and prevent reporters from following people with cameras and microphones. The BCCLA argued that the public is entitled to access to information about our courts and the proceedings within them and that the restrictions violate Charter rights to freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Cases 2009

Canada (Prime Minister) v. Khadr

The BCCLA appeared at the Supreme Court of Canada to argue that the Government of Canada must take steps to seek the repatriation of child soldier and Guantanamo detainee Omar Khadr. The Supreme Court ruled that Canada had violated Mr. Khadr’s Charter rights and that seeking repatriation could be an effective remedy. The court stopped short of upholding the Court of Appeal’s orders to seek immediate repatriation, but found that the Charter breaches should be remedied.

Supreme Court of Canada

CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc. v. Horizon Publications

Application for intervention

The BCCLA was granted leave to intervene in a lawsuit launched by Canwest MediaWorks over an alleged trademark infringement based on a mock edition of the Vancouver Sun. The publication parodied the layout of the Vancouver Sun while mocking the paper’s perceived bias in favour of the state of Israel and against Palestinians. The BCCLA will argue that the CanWest lawsuit is an attempt by CanWest to use the courts to silence satirical criticism and constrain fair comment. A trial date has not yet been set.

The BCCLA is represented by Monique Pongracic-Speier of Schroeder Speier.

Supreme Court of BC

Henry v. C anada
(Attorney General), 2010 BCSC 610 BC

Supreme Court of BC

The Braidwood Inquiry

The Braidwood hearing and study commission was a public inquiry into the death of Robert Dziekanski. Mr. Dziekanski died after being tasered five times by an RCMP constable at the Vancouver International Airport in 2007. At the inquiry, which included the testimony of 91 witnesses over 61 days, the BCCLA argued that the use of force by RCMP officers was grossly excessive, unreasonable and unjustified. The BCCLA also submitted that the practice of police investigating police-related deaths needed to be brought to an end. The Commissioner’s report, released on June 18, 2010, agreed with the BCCLA on both points. The Commissioner found that the constable was not justified in deploying the taser and recommended that BC establish a civilian-based body to investigate police related deaths.

Later that same day BC Solicitor General Mike De Jong announced that the province would in fact be establishing a new civilian investigation body. This represented a major victory for the BCCLA who have been advocating for an end to police investigating police for at least fifteen years.

The BCCLA was represented by Grace Pastine, BCCLA Litigation Director.

City of Vancouver, et al. v. Alan Cameron Ward, et al.

These cases concerned whether compensatory damages can be awarded for a violation of rights guaranteed in the Charter. The appeals stem from a case brought by an individual, Mr. Cameron Ward, who sought declarations that his rights under the Charter were infringed, as well as damages, for wrongful imprisonment, a jail strip search, and the unreasonable seizure of his car by police. The BCCLA argued that it was necessary to award damages to Mr. Ward in order to provide him with full and effective remedies for the violation of his Charter rights.

Supreme Court of Canada

Trent Terrence Sinclair v. Her Majesty the Queen and Stanley James Willier v. Her Majesty the Queen

Argument

The BCCLA appeared as an intervener before the Supreme Court of Canada in three companion cases concerning the Charter rights of the accused to speak with a lawyer. Of the many protections afforded by the Charter, those triggered by an individual’s arrest or detention are among the most critical. The BCCLA argued that people who are detained by the police have an ongoing right to speak to counsel. Providing an individual with a one-time opportunity to speak to his or her lawyer at the beginning of a detention is not enough.

Supreme Court of Canada

The City of Victoria v. Adams et al.

This case challenged the City of Victoria’s bylaws that prevented homeless individuals from erecting shelters to protect themselves from the elements when sleeping outside. The BCCLA argued that telling homeless people who have nowhere else to go that they can sleep outside but they can’t protect themselves from the elements places the homeless in an impossible situation. The BC Court of Appeal agreed with the lower court and held that denying homeless individuals a place to sleep and the ability to protect themselves from the elements was a violation of the Charter.

BC Court of Appeal

Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority v. Canadian Federation of Students

The question raised by this appeal was whether government entities have the right to control the content of the expression that took place on the side of buses. The BCCLA argued that refusing to allow the appellants to advertise on the side of buses amounted to an infringement of their section 2(b) Charter Rights, as the proposed location and method of expression did not detract from the values that the Charter was designed to promote.

Supreme Court of Canada

Dixon v. Powell River (City)

During a debate over a controversial development in Powell River, B.C. three citizens publicly criticized the City’s decision making process. The City sent letters to the citizens threatening that the City would sue and demanding apologies and retractions in return for the possible reduction of their damages in libel lawsuits. The BCCLA joined Mr. Dixon, a BCCLA board member and Powell River resident, in seeking a declaration that the importance of political expression means that the City of Powell River could not take action against members of the public for defaming its governing reputation. The case was a clean win for civil liberties, breaking new ground in finding that Charter values supersede the old law, which gave municipalities and other governments the same rights as individual persons to sue for defamation.

Supreme Court of BC

National Post et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen

This case concerns the Charter right to freedom of the press, especially the ability of the media to protect the confidentiality of sources. The National Post received a document from a confidential source, but there were allegations that the document was a forgery. The RCMP obtained a search warrant and an assistance order requiring the Post to produce the document for forensic analysis. The BCCLA appeared as an intervener before the Supreme Court of Canada, which has reserved judgment in the case.

Supreme Court of Canada

Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society and Sheryl Kiselback v. The Attorney General of Canada

Argument

BC Court of Appeal

Arkinstall v. The City of Surrey

The Safety Standards Amendments Act, passed in 2006, requires electricity companies to give municipalities information about residents with certain patterns of power consumption, who can then notify police and dispatch “safety officers” to inspect the residence. This civil suit was brought by a Surrey couple who had their hydro disconnected for refusing to allow RCMP to accompany “safety officers” in an inspection of their home. The BCCLA was an intervenor in the case and argued that the legislation is being used as a tool to conduct warrantless searches of citizens’ homes, which is a clear violation of the Charter.

BC Court of Appeal

Legal Cases 2008

British Columbia Teachers Federation v. British Columbia (Attorney General)

BC Supreme Court

British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Davies

The Criminal Justice Branch (CJB) of the Ministry of Attorney General brought a legal challenge to the ability of the Frank Paul Inquiry to obtain evidence from prosecutors involved in the Frank Paul case. The BCCLA was a participant at the inquiry, and also appeared in the case before the BC Supreme Court and BC Court of Appeal.

We argued that it is crucial that the Commissioner be allowed to fully inquire into the decisions not to lay charges against the officers involved in Mr. Paul’s death so that the public can be assured that prosecutors examine every police related death fairly and impartially. In cases where prosecutors are called upon to investigate and lay charges in matters involving police officers, there is a significant potential for real or perceived improper influence in the administration of public justice. The BC Court of Appeal held that the CJB must provide evidence in the Frank Paul inquiry. The CJB sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada but leave was denied.

The BCCLA was represented by Michael Tammen of Harper Grey LLP and Grace Pastine, BCCLA Litigation Director.

BC Court of Appeal

The Ministry of Public Safety and Security and the Attorney General of Ontario v. The Criminal Lawyers Association

Argument

The BCCLA intervened at the Supreme Court of Canada to argue that without access to the government information citizens cannot freely express themselves. The case concerned the Ontario Provincial Police’s suppression of a report that detailed a flawed investigation of a 1983 murder. The Supreme Court adopted the BCCLA’s argument in part, finding that a citizen’s rights to free expression can include the right to access information held by government where the information is essential to public discussion and is not subject to privilege.

Cathy Beagan Flood and Iris Fischer of Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP acted as counsel for the BCCLA.

Supreme Court of Canada

The City of Victoria v. Adams et al.

BC Supreme Court

Chatterjee v. Attorney General of Ontario

Argument

Supreme Court of Canada

Ward v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia and Ward v. City of Vancouver

These cases concerned whether compensatory damages can be awarded for a violation of rights guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The appeals stem from a case brought by an individual, Mr. Cameron Ward, who sought declarations that his rights under the Charter were infringed, as well as damages, for wrongful imprisonment, a jail strip search, and the unreasonable seizure of his car by police. The BCCLA argued that it was necessary to award damages to Mr. Ward in order to provide him with full and effective remedies for the violation of his Charter rights.

B.C. Court of Appeal

Elmasry and Habib v. Rogers Publishing Ltd. and MacQueen

This complaint before the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal alleged that the publication of an article titled “Why The Future Belongs to Islam” in Maclean’s Magazine and website amounted to discrimination on the basis of religion. The BCCLA intervened in this case and argued for a restrictive application of the Human Rights Code provisions dealing with discriminatory publications, so as to protect freedom of expression. The Tribunal dismissed the complaint, finding that the article did not breach the Human Rights Code and the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction over Maclean’s website.

B.C. Human Rights Tribunal

Arkinstall v. City of Surrey

Frank Paul Inquiry

This public inquiry is investigating the death of Mr. Frank Paul, a 47 year-old homeless Mi’kmaq man who died in an alley after being left there by police in December 1998. The BCCLA has participated in the inquiry. To date the inquiry has uncovered the significant role the Vancouver Police Department played in Mr. Paul’s tragic death. The inquiry has also highlighted systemic failures in the responses of various institutional agencies to his death. The BCCLA has proposed numerous changes to help prevent similar deaths and deficient investigations in the future, including the decriminalization of intoxication and civilian oversight of investigations into deaths that occur in police custody.

Frank Paul Inquiry

PHS Community Services Society v. Canada (Attorney General) and Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users v. Canada (Attorney General)

The recent decision of the B. C. Supreme Court granted a supervised injection facility, Insite, located in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, a permanent constitutional exemption from prosecution under federal drug laws. The judgment asserted that sections of Canada’s drug laws against possession and trafficking in illegal narcotics were unconstitutional. The BCCLA was an intervenor in these cases and has a long-standing commitment to advocating for safe and sensible drug policies. Canada has appealed the ruling. A hearing at the BC court of appeal has been scheduled for April 2009.

Supreme Court of B.C.

Khadr v. Canada (Minister of Justice)

This decision of the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that the Charter binds Canadian officials when operating abroad, where Canada would also be acting in contravention of its obligations under international human rights law. The BCCLA intervened in the case and submitted that by gathering evidence from Mr. Khadr and sharing it with American military authorities, Canada’s complicity in the proceedings violated Mr. Khadr’s Charter rights to life, liberty and security of the person.

Supreme Court of Canada

Complainant v. The Wild Coyote Club (Inquiry under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act)

Argument

The Wild Coyote Club required patrons, upon entering the club, to provide a driver’s licence which is then scanned into a computer, and to allow the club to take a digital photograph of the patron that is also stored in the computer. The BCCLA argued that the practice of scanning and storing the information contained on the driver’s licences of bar patrons violates the Personal Information Protection Act SBC 2003 c. 63, and is an unwarranted and unlawful intrusion into the privacy of patrons.

Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner

Amnesty International Canada and British Columbia Civil Liberties Association v. Chief of the Defence Staff for the Canadian Forces, Minister of National Defence and Attorney General of Canada, Court File Number T-324-07.

Summary Documents

This is a case filed by the BCCLA and Amnesty in federal court against the Canadian military forces. The case aims to stop the Canadian Forces’ practice of transferring detainees to the custody of the Afghan National Security Forces where the detainees face serious risk of torture.

Legal Cases 2007

Simpson v. Mair and WIC Radio Ltd.

Argument

This appeal concerned the free speech rights of a speaker on a matter of public interest. The defendant Mair read an editorial he had written on his radio show, in which he referred to the plaintiff on several occasions with negative comments. The BCCLA submitted that the law of defamation must be clarified, keeping in mind the court’s mandate under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to ensure stronger and better protection for the fundamental right of freedom of expression.

Supreme Court of Canada

Hayes v. Barker

Argument

The BC Court of Appeal upheld a decision by the BC Human Rights Tribunal to accept a human rights complaint for filing. Peter Hayes brought a complaint against the Vancouver Police Department alleging that a VPD officer had denied him a chauffeur's licence because Mr. Hayes engages in “BDSM” sexual behaviour. The BCCLA intervened at both the BC Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal to argue that the Tribunal should be afforded the opportunity to consider whether a restrictive interpretation of the sexual orientation would infringe fundamental rights.

B.C. Court of Appeal

Donald David Spratt (Appellant) and Regina (Respondent) and between Gordon Stephen Watson (Appellant) and Regina (Respondent) and the Access Coalition (Elizabeth Bagshaw Society, Everywoman’s Health Centre Society (1988), the B.C. Pro-Choice Action Network Society, C.A.R.E. Program at the Women’s Heath Centre of British Columbia, the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund), the Canadian Nurses for Life, the Christian Legal Fellowship, the Catholic Civil Rights League and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association (Intervenors).

Argument

B.C. Court of Appeal

Royal City Jewellers and Loans Ltd. and the City of New Westminster (Respondent) and the Attorney General of B.C. (Intervenor) and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association (Intervenor).

Argument

B.C. Court of Appeal

British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (Applicant) and Paul Kennedy, Commission Chairman of the, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Public Complaints Commission, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Attorney General of Canada and Giuliano Zaccardelli (Respondents).

Argument

Federal Court

R. v. Terezakis

Argument

B.C. Court of Appeal

Legal Cases 2006

Constitutionality of Security Certificates: Harkat, Charkaoui, Almrei.

Kevin Barker and Peter M. Hayes v. Vancouver Police Department

Argument

The Canadian Federation of Students (British Columbia component) and the British Columbia Teachers' Federation (Appellants) v. the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority and British Columbia Transit (Respondents) and British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (Intervenor).

Argument

The Canadian Federation of Students (British Columbia component) and the British Columbia Teachers' Federation (Appellants) v. The Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority and British Columbia Transit (Respondents) and British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (Intervenor).

Argument

B.C. Court of Appeal

Julie Berg (Appellant) and Police Complaint Commissioner, Dirk Ryneveld, Q.C. (Respondent) and David Bruce-Thomas (Respondent).

Argument

B.C. Court of Appeal

Legal Cases 2005

Argument

Supreme Court of B.C.

The Canadian Federation of Students (British Columbia component) and the British Columbia Teachers' Federation (Appellants) v. The Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority and British Columbia Transit (Respondents) and Britsh Columbia Civil Liberties Association (Intervenor). (2)

Argument

Supreme Court of B.C.

Christopher Stephen Myles Kempling (Appellant) and the British Columbia College of Teachers (Respondent) argument of the Intervenor B.C. Civil Liberties Association.

Argument

B.C. Court of Appeal

Terry Lee May (Appellant) and Warden of Ferndale Institution, Warden of Mission Institution, Deputy Commissioner, Pacific Region, Correctional Service of Canada and Attorney General of Canada.

Argument

Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Cases 2004

Arar Inquiry

In the matter of a reference by the Governor in Council concerning the proposal for an act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes.

Argument

Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Cases 2003

Christopher Stephen Myles Kempling (Appellant) and the British Columbia College of Teachers (Respondent) argument of the Intervenor B.C. Civil Liberties Association.

Argument

B.C. Supreme Court

Legal Cases 2002

City of Vancouver (Plaintiff) and Claude Maurice, Kerry Pakarinen, Anton Pilippa, Craig Ballantyne, Jim Leyden, Jane Doe, John Doe and Other Persons Unknown, erecting, maintaining, or occupying tents, structures and other objects on City of Vancouver Streets in the 100 block West Hastings Street, Vancouver, British Columbia (Defendants) and B.C. Civil Liberties Association (Intervenor)

Argument

Supreme Court of B.C.

Global BC (also known as BCTV News) a division of Global Communications Limited; CKVU, a division of CHUM Limited; Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; CTV Inc.; CTV Television Inc.; CIVT, a division of CTV Television Inc. (d.b.a. BC CTV, formerly VTV); the Radio Television News Directors’ Association of Canada; and Ad Idem - Advocates in Defence of Expression in the Media (Appellants) and Dimitros Pilarinos, Glen David Clark and the Attorney General of British Columbia (Respondents) and the Attorney General of Canada, the Attorney General of Quebec, the Attorney General of Ontario, the Attorney General of Manitoba, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (Intervenors)

Argument

Supreme Court of Canada

Christopher James Clay, Victor Eugene Caine, David Malmo-Levine (Appellants) v. R. and the Attorney General of Ontario, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (Intervenors)

Argument

Supreme Court of Canada

Richard Sauvé (Respondent) v. the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, the Solicitor General of Canada, and the Attorney General of Canada (Appellant).

Argument

Supreme Court of Canada

James Chamberlain, Murray Warren, Diane Willcott, Blaine Cook, by his Guardian Ad Litem, Sue Cook and Rosamund Elwin Appellants (Petitioners) and The Board of Trustees of School District #36 (Surrey) (Respondent) and Egale Canada Inc., Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, The Board of Trustees of School District No. 34 (Abbotsford), Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Families in Partnership, The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, The Archdiocese of Vancouver, The Catholic Civil Rights League and The Canadian Alliance for Social Justice and Family Values Assocation (Intervenors)

Argument

Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Cases 2000

APEC inquiry

Final Argument

Legal Cases 1999

James Chamberlain, Murray Warren, Diane Willcott, Blaine Cook, by his guardian Ad Litem, Sue Cook and Rosamund Elwin (Appellants) and the Board of Trustees of School District #36 (Surrey) (Respondent) and Egale Canada Inc. and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (Intervenor)

Argument

Appeal Court of B.C.

Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium, B.C. Civil Liberties Association, James Eaton Deva and Guy Allen Bruce Smythe (Appellants) and Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Minister of National Revenue, Attorney General of British Columbia (Respondents)

Argument

Legal Cases 1997

Canadian Jewish Congress (Complainant) v. North Shore Free Press d.b.a. North Shore News and Doug Collins (Respondents)

Argument

B.C. Human Rights Tribunal