{"id":269717,"date":"2022-07-07T12:00:36","date_gmt":"2022-07-07T06:30:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=269717"},"modified":"2022-07-15T13:18:18","modified_gmt":"2022-07-15T07:48:18","slug":"canada-scs-unanimous-verdict-on-test-of-public-interest-standing-paves-way-for-access-to-justice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/07\/canada-scs-unanimous-verdict-on-test-of-public-interest-standing-paves-way-for-access-to-justice\/","title":{"rendered":"Canada SC’s unanimous verdict on test of Public Interest Standing paves way for access to justice"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

\n

Canada Supreme Court<\/span>: A full bench comprising, Wagner C.J. and Moldaver, Karakatsanis, C\u00f4t\u00e9, Brown, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer, and Jamal JJ unanimously upheld the framework laid down in Canada (Attorney General)<\/i> v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society<\/i>, 2012 SCC 45<\/a> and stated that in cases wherein constitutionality of the law is challenged by Public Interest Organization on behalf of community members or marginalized groups who lack money, status, and privileged access to justice, the Court should adopt a flexible and discretionary approach to public interest standing. Therefore, it was held that the Council of Canadians with Disabilities (hereinafter The Council) meets the test for public interest standing and can continue the lawsuit.<\/p>\n

Facts and Contentions of the case<\/p>\n

In 2016, The Council and two individuals challenged the constitutionality of British Columbia’s mental health legislation.<\/span> The law allows doctors to administer psychiatric treatment <\/span>to patients with mental disabilities without their consent<\/span> or the consent of someone else on their behalf. It was submitted before the Court that such treatment without their consent violates sections 7 and 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. <\/span>Section 7 guarantees everyone the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and Section 15(1) guarantees everyone has the right to be treated equally without discrimination, including based on mental or physical disability.<\/p>\n

In 2017, the two individuals withdrew their case, leaving the Council as the only plaintiff. Therefore, the Council pleaded that it should be granted the status of public interest standing and allowed to continue the lawsuit. The trial court held that the Council cannot be granted the status of public interest standing.<\/p>\n

Observations made by the Court<\/p>\n

The bench made the following observation while writing the unanimous judgment:<\/p>\n