Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-04T21:08:33.382Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Justiciability, Access to Justice and the Development of Constitutional Law in Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Gerard J Kennedy  and
Lorne Sossin
Gerard J Kennedy
Affiliation:
Osgoode Hall Law School, York University; 2016 Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation Scholar
Lorne Sossin
Affiliation:
Osgoode Hall Law School, York University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Concentrating on Canadian experience, specifically litigation under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the ‘Charter’), this article seeks to reconcile the access to justice benefits of summary procedures with the government litigant's duty to act in the public interest (or as a ‘model litigant’) and uphold the rule of law. Though acknowledging the benefits that can result from the use of summary procedures to end litigation, the authors observe that compliance with strict requirements in procedural law are frequently dispensed with in the Charter context. In fact, summary procedures can have a devastating effect on the development of Charter rights. The authors ultimately posit that the government should have a duty of restraint in using summary procedures to end public law litigation, and courts should be reluctant to permit the government to preclude such litigation aimed at advancing the evolution of the Charter from reaching hearings on the merits.

Type
Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 45 , Issue 4 , December 2017 , pp. 707 - 723
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, eg, Lorne, M Sossin, Boundaries of Judicial Review: The Law of Justiciability in Canada (Carswell, 2nd ed, 2012)Google Scholar.

2 Canada Act 1982 (UK) c 11, sch B pt I (‘Charter’).

3 See, eg, Hryniak v Mauldin [2014] 1 SCR 87, 92 [1] (Karakatsanis J) (‘Hryniak’).

4 Ibid.

5 See, eg, Michelle, Flaherty, ‘Best Practices in Active Adjudication’ (2015) 28 Canadian Journal of Administrative Law and Practice 291, 297–8Google Scholar. The pitfalls facing self-represented litigants are explained thoroughly by Julie Macfarlane in Julie MacFarlane, ‘The National Self-Represented Litigants Project: Identifying and Meeting the Needs of Self-Represented Litigants’ (Final Report, Treasurer's Advisory Group on Access to Justice, May 2013) <http://www.lsuc.on.ca.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/uploadedFiles/For_the_Public/About_the_Law_Society/Convocation_Decisions/2014/Self-represented_project.pdf>.

6 Vasuda, Sinha, Lorne, Sossin and Jenna, Meguid, ‘Charter Litigation, Social and Economic Rights & Civil Procedure’ (2017) 26 Journal of Law and Social Policy 43Google Scholar; Jonathan, Lisus, ‘Hryniak: Requiem for the vanishing trial, or brave new world?’ (2014) 33(1) The Advocates’ Journal 6Google Scholar.

7 Adam, M Dodek, ‘Lawyering at the Intersection of Public Law and Legal Ethics: Government Lawyers as Custodians of the Rule of Law’ (2010) 33(1) Dalhousie Law Journal 1Google Scholar.

8 Explained in Matthew, Groves, ‘Judicial Review and Human Rights’ (2018) 25 Australian Journal of Administrative Law (forthcoming)Google Scholar, citing Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476, 513 [103].

9 Described in a series of cases beginning with Crévier v A-G (Quebec) [1981] 2 SCR 220 (Laskin CJ). The constitutional requirement for judicial review is also noted by Abella J in Wilson v Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd [2016] 1 SCR 770, 794-5 [31].

10 [1959] SCR 121, 140.

11 Rayner, Thwaites, ‘The Changing Landscape of Non-Justiciability’ [2016] 1 New Zealand Law Review 31, 59Google Scholar.

12 For further discussion of this point, see Lorne, Sossin, ‘The Unfinished Project of Roncarelli: Justiciability, Discretion and the Limits of the Rule of Law’ (2010) 55(3) McGill Law Journal 661Google Scholar.

13 See, eg, Black v Chrétien (2001) 54 OR (3d) 215 (CA).

14 Tanudjaja v A-G (Canada) (2014) 123 OR (3d) 161 (‘Tanudjaja’).

15 See, eg, Groves, above n 8, citing Stephen, Gageler, ‘Impact of Migration Law on the Development of Australian Administrative Law’ (2010) 17 Australian Journal of Administrative Law 92Google Scholar.

16 See, eg, Matthew, Groves, ‘Judicial Review of Administrative Action in the High Court of Australia’ (2008) 33(2) Queen's Law Journal 327, 347–8Google Scholar; In re Judiciary and Navigation Acts (1921) 29 CLR 257.

17 See, eg, Reference re Secession of Quebec [1998] 2 SCR 217.

18 A-G (Canada) v Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society [2012] 2 SCR 524 (‘Downtown Eastside’).

19 Borowski v A-G (Canada) [1989] 1 SCR 342 (‘Borowski’).

20 See, eg, Groves, above n 16, 347–8; Re McBain; ex parte Australian Catholic Bishops Conference (2002) 209 CLR 372, 458-62 [242]–[252] (Hayne J).

21 Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v A-G (British Columbia) [2014] 3 SCR 31 (‘Trial Lawyers Association’).

22 Kent, Roach and Lorne, Sossin, ‘Access to Justice and Beyond’ (2010) 60(2) University of Toronto Law Journal 373, 374Google Scholar.

23 Civil Resolution Tribunal <https://civilresolutionbc.ca/>; Shannon, Salter, ‘ODR and Justice System Integration: B.C.'s Civil Resolution Tribunal’ (2017) 34(1) Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 112Google Scholar.

24 Roach and Sossin, above n 22, 376.

25 See, eg, Trevor, C.W. Farrow, ‘What is Access to Justice?’ (2014) 51(3) Osgoode Hall Law Journal 957, 970–2Google Scholar.

26 Ibid, 978-9; Roderick, A Macdonald, ‘Access to Justice in Canada Today: Scope, Scale and Ambitions’ in Julia, Bass, W A, Bogart and Frederick, H Zemans (eds), Access to Justice for a New Century—The Way Forward (Irwin Law, 2005) 68–73Google Scholar. Underlying all of these, as well as an important principle in its own right, is proportionality: Hryniak [2014] 1 SCR 87, [29]–[33]; Trevor, Farrow, ‘Proportionality: A Cultural Revolution’ (2012) 1 Journal of Civil Litigation and Practice 151Google Scholar.

27 See, eg, Trevor, C.W. Farrow, ‘A New Wave of Access to Justice Reform’ in Adam, Dodek and Alice, Woolley (eds), In Search of the Ethical Lawyer: Stories from the Canadian Legal Profession (UBC Press, 2016) 164, 166–7Google Scholar; Andrew, Pilliar, ‘Exploring a Law Firm Business Model to Improve Access to Justice’ (2015) 32(1) Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 1Google Scholar.

28 Farrow, above n 27, 166-7.

29 Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194 (‘Rules’).

30 See, eg, O Reg 43/14; O Reg 438/08.

31 Rules, RRO 1990, Reg 194, r 1.04(1.1) as inserted by O Reg, 438/08, s 2. See Farrow, above n 26.

32 Farrow, above n 27, 167.

33 Ibid 166.

34 Rules, RRO 1990, Reg 194, r 20, as analysed in Hryniak [2014] 1 SCR 87.

35 Hryniak [2014] 1 SCR 87, 93 [5].

36 See, eg, Shantona, Chaudhary, ‘Hryniak v. Mauldin: The Supreme Court issues a clarion call for civil justice reform’ (2014) 33 The Advocates’ Journal 3Google Scholar.

37 Ibid.

38 Brooke, MacKenzie, ‘Effecting a Culture Shift: An Empirical Review of Ontario's Summary Judgment Reforms’ (2017) 54 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 1275Google Scholar.

39 See, eg, Kasheke v A-G (Canada) (2017) 277 ACWS (3d) 75 (NSSC); Farley v Ottawa (City) Police Services Board (2017) 282 ACWS (3d) 690 (ONCA), as examples where this occurred.

40 See, eg, Sturgeon Lake Indian Band v A-G (Canada) (2016) 269 ACWS (3d) 201 (ABQB).

41 Smith v Ontario (2016) 368 CRR (2d) 322, [172] (Matheson J) (ONSC).

42 Rules, RRO 1990, Reg 194, r 21.01(3)(d).

43 Stephen, Pitel and Matthew, Lerner, ‘Resolving Questions of Law: A Modern Approach to Rule 21’ (2013) 43 Advocates’ Quarterly 344, 348Google Scholar.

44 Gerard, J Kennedy and Mary, Angela Rowe, ‘Tanudjaja v. Canada (Attorney General): Distinguishing Injusticiability and Deference on Motions to Strike’ (2015) 44 Advocates’ Quarterly 391Google Scholar. See also ibid.

45 Farrow, above n 26.

46 Already discussed in Pitel and Lerner, above n 43; Kennedy and Rowe, above n 44.

47 Rules, RRO 1990, Reg 194, r 2.1.

48 Raji v Ladner (2015) 248 ACWS (3d) 828, [9] (ONSC) (‘Raji’); approved by the Court of Appeal in Scaduto v Law Society of Upper Canada (2015) 343 OAC 87, [9].

49 Raji (2015) 248 ACWS (3d) 828, [12].

50 Ibid [8].

51 See, eg, Asghar v Ontario [2015] ONSC 4071 (23 June 2015).

52 Paul, Vayda, ‘Chipping away at Cost Barriers: A Comment on the Supreme Court of Canada's Trial Lawyers Decision’ (2015) 36 Windsor Review of Legal and Social Issues 207Google Scholar; Mark, Aronson, Matthew, Groves and Greg, Weeks, Judicial Review of Administrative Action and Government Liability (Thomson Reuters, 6th ed, 2017) 594–6Google Scholar, specifically concerning access to representation.

53 [2014] 3 SCR 31.

54 See Kent, Roach, ‘Not Just the Government's Lawyer’ (2008) 31 Queen's Law Journal 598Google Scholar; Allan, Hutchinson, ‘“In the Public Interest”: The Responsibilities and Rights of Government Lawyers’ (2008) 46 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 105Google Scholar; Debra, McAllister, ‘The Attorney General's Role as Guardian of the Public Interest in Charter Litigation’ (2002) 21 Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 47Google Scholar.

55 The Rules of Professional Conduct of the Law Society of Upper Canada <https://www.lsuc.on.ca/list.aspx?id=671> set out the following:

5.1–3 When acting as a prosecutor, a lawyer shall act for the public and the administration of justice resolutely and honourably within the limits of the law while treating the tribunal with candour, fairness, courtesy, and respect.

56 [1955] SCR 16.

57 Ibid 23-4.

58 For discussion, see New Brunswick v Rothmans Inc (2009) 352 NBR (2d) 226, [33].

59 Attorney-General of Australia, Legal Services Directions 2017, 29 March 2017, s 4.2 (‘LSD 2017’).

60 Ibid app B.

61 Dodek, above n 7, 26.

62 Court Challenges Program of Canada, Reinstatement News (February 2017) <www.ccppcj.ca/en/news.php>.

63 Court Challenges Program of Canada, About CCP (February 2017) <www.ccppcj.ca/en/about.php>.

64 Court Challenges Program of Canada, above n 62.

65 LSD 2017 sch B s 2(a).

66 British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v Okanagan Indian Band [2003] 3 SCR 371, 399-400 [40] (LeBel J); Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v Canada (Commissioner of Customs and Revenue) [2007] 1 SCR 38, 47-64 [2]–[44] (Bastarache and Lebel JJ).

67 See, eg, the decision of Justice Sharpe in Edwards v Law Society of Upper Canada (1998) 156 DLR (4th) 348. He gives a similar overview from an academic perspective in JusticeRobert, J Sharpe, ‘Access to Charter Justice’ (2013) 63 Supreme Court Law Review 3Google Scholar.

68 See eg, B(R) v Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto [1995] 1 SCR 315, 327 [26] (Deschamps J); Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique v British Columbia [2013] 2 SCR 774, 802 [64] (Wagner J); Sharpe, above n 67.

69 Carter v A-G (Canada) [2015] 1 SCR 331, 393-5 [138]–[143].

70 Thorson v A-G (Canada) [1975] 1 SCR 138.

71 Nova Scotia Board of Censors v McNeil [1978] 2 SCR 662.

72 Minister of Justice (Canada) v Borowski [1981] 2 SCR 575.

73 Downtown Eastside [2012] 2 SCR 524, 546-53 [37]–[51] (Cromwell J).

74 Ibid 550 [45]. See Matt, Malone, ‘Standing in the Way: Comparing Constraints on Access to Justice After the Liberalization of Public Interest Standing in Canada and Israel’ (2017) 46 Advocates’ Quarterly 451Google Scholar.

75 See, eg, Borowski [1989] 1 SCR 342, 361 (Sopinka J).

76 M v H [1999] 2 SCR 3, 44-5 [44] (Cory and Iacobucci JJ).

77 Borowski [1989] 1 SCR 342.

78 Sinha, Sossin and Meguid, above n 6.

79 Ibid 1.

80 Tanudjaja (2014) 123 OR (3d) 161.

81 See the press coverage of Tanudjaja, eg, Laurie Monsebraaten, ‘Housing for All Not a Right: Court of Appeal Rules in Rejecting Charter Challenge’, Toronto Star (online), 1 December 2014 <https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/12/01/housing_for_all_not_a_right_court_of_appeal_rules_in_rejecting_charter_challenge.html>.

82 LSD 2017 app B.

83 Cf Sinha, Sossin and Meguid, above n 6; Kennedy and Rowe, above n 44.

84 Sinha, Sossin and Meguid, above n 6. Kennedy does not disagree with this proposition though questions whether the value was worth the cost in Tanudjaja itself. Kennedy believes the matter was justiciable but, unlike Sossin, he believes that the underlying claim was clearly implausible and the pleading manifestly failed to disclose a cause of action: Kennedy and Rowe, above n 44.

85 Tanudjaja (2014) 123 OR (3d) 161, [67]–[68].

86 (1989) 58 DLR (4th) 396 (Supreme Court of Ontario—High Court of Justice).

87 Jane Doe v Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) Commissioners of Police (1998) 39 OR (3d) 487 (Court of Justice (General Division)).

88 Lorne, Sossin, ‘The Justice of Access: Who Should Have Standing to Challenge the Constitutional Adequacy of Legal Aid?’ (2007) 40(2) UBC Law Review 727, 734Google Scholar.

89 Ibid 731.

90 See New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v G(J) [1999] 3 SCR 46.

91 Canadian Bar Assn v British Columbia (2006) 59 BCLR (4th) 38, [45]–[47] (BCSC), affd (2008) 76 BCLR (4th) 48 (BCCA), leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada denied [2008] SCCA No 185.

92 Sossin, above n 88, 741.

93 Dodek, above n 7; LSD 2017 sch B.

94 There is of course a school of thought that such matters should not be subject to judicial review but given open-ended statements of the Supreme Court of Canada in Gosselin v A-G (Québec) [2002] 4 SCR 429, that appears uncertain.

95 Allen v Alberta (2015) 389 DLR (4th) 422 (ABCA) (‘Allen’).

96 RSA 2000, c A-20.

97 Chaoulli v A-G (Québec) [2005] 1 SCR 791.

98 Allen (2015) 389 DLR (4th) 422, [54].

99 Ibid [27].

100 Ibid.

101 See, eg, Matthew, A Hennigar, ‘Conceptualizing Attorney General Conduct in Charter Litigation: From Independence to Central Agency’ (2008) 51(2) Canadian Public Administration 193Google Scholar.