Sometimes people feel like something is wrong but just can’t quite put their finger on what that is. Well, let us help! Bakerlaw has a wealth of experience in guiding clients through Charter cases including helping clients to identify what the Charter issue is and how best to address the problem.
We can help you identify if you have a case, help you understand the steps involved in bringing a case, and what remedies are available to you.
Now you’re probably wondering, ok great, but how do I pay for that? Well good news, we can help with that too! Have you heard of the Court Challenges Program (link)? This program provides funding for individuals and/or organizations to bring Charter cases to Court. Do you or your organization (link) have an interest in an ongoing matter before the courts? No problem, the Court Challenges Program provides funding for interventions too!
Bakerlaw has successfully secured funding for a variety of Charter cases. We can put the application together for you!
Bakerlaw has assisted clients in combatting discrimination in cases at all levels of court, including the Supreme Court of Canada. We’ve also been counsel on Charter cases related to freedom of expression, security of the person and democratic rights.
Interested in learning more? Contact us (link).
Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia
Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia,  1 SCR 143; the Supreme Court of Canada held that a rule which restricts an entire class of persons from certain forms of employment, on the grounds of a lack of citizenship status and without consideration to educational and professional qualifications, infringes section 15 (equality rights) of the Charter.
Eldridge v British Columbia (Attorney General)
Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General),  3 SCR 624; In this decision, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that if a service is to be provided, it must be done in an inclusive manner. The Court ruled that sign language interpreters must be provided in the delivery of medical services where doing so is necessary to ensure effective communication.
British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles v British Columbia (Council of Human Rights)
British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v. British Columbia (Council of Human Rights),  3 SCR 868; The Supreme Court of Canada held that that it was discriminatory to cancel the license of a person with a visual disability.
Lovelace v Ontario
Lovelace v. Ontario, 2000 SCC 37,  1 SCR 950; At that time, this was the leading decision from the Supreme Court of Canada on section 15(2) of the Charter. This section protects affirmative action programs from the equality requirement under section 15(1) of the Charter. The Court held that the distribution of casino profits to a select group of Indigenous Peoples was not discriminatory.
Harper v Canada (Attorney General)
Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 33,  1 SCR 827; the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Canada Election’s Act spending limits on third-party election advertising infringes section 2(b) of the Charter. This section deals with the fundamental freedoms in relation to thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication. The Court ruled that while section 2(b) of the Charter was infringed, it was saved by section 1 of the Charter, and that the limits imposed under the Act were justified as it helped to protect fairness in elections.
Charkaoui v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 SCC 9,  1 SCR 350; The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the detention of a permanent resident or foreign national deemed to be a threat to national security, infringes section 7 (life, liberty, and security of the person) of the person.
Council of Canadians with Disabilities v VIA Rail Canada Inc.
Council of Canadians with Disabilities v. VIA Rail Canada Inc., 2007 SCC 15,  1 SCR 650; the Supreme Court of Canada required VIA Rail to modify its coach and service cars to accommodate those who use mobility devices. The costly renovation required to modify the trains did not constitute undue hardship. This case sets a strong precedent that what constitutes “undue hardship” is a high threshold.
Carter v Canada
Carter v Canada, 2015 SCC 5; The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the prohibition on physician-assisted dying infringes the life, liberty and security of the person (section 7 of the Charter) as it results in intolerable suffering. This decision legalized medical assistance in dying.
Does inaction on climate change violate Canadians’ human rights? If the Netherlands are any example to follow, the answer may be yes. In The Netherlands vs Urgenda, the Dutch Supreme Court found that an inadequate response to climate change can…
On July 15, 2020, an Oakville bus driver won her battle against the Ontario Ministry of Transportation regulation that stripped her of her drivers’ license after she lost her right eye to cancer. Liliana Di Cienzo was a bus driver…
Genetic testing has never been more accessible. A genetic test can tell you about your ancestry, or tell your doctor important information about your health. The information from a genetic test, however, is highly personal. It would be a breach…
While the Council of Canadians with Disabilities has praised the government’s plan for “using a disability lens when developing its national work,” others have been critical of the CDB’s ability to support Canadians with disabilities. Of particular concern for John…
The COVID-19 pandemic has affected everyone. City News Toronto has written about the impact the pandemic has had on those who receive Ontario Disability Support Payments (ODSP). The article highlights how some ODSP recipients have, or are are considering applying…