Iler Campbell LLP

Upholding the rights of marginalized groups through public interest litigation

February 28th, 2013 by Shelina Ali

Canada’s human rights record has come under fire over the past several months. In December of 2012, Amnesty International released a highly critical report of the state of human rights in Canada. The report details abuses against vulnerable groups in Canada including indigenous peoples, women, migrant workers and refugees.

Amnesty International notes in its report that “support for strong advocacy and diverse, including dissenting, views in debates and discussion of important public policy issues is being dramatically undermined and rapidly dismantled [in Canada].”

This month, Human Rights Watch published a report detailing police abuses against indigenous women and girls in Northern British Columbia. The report found that Canada was not meeting its obligations under international law to address violence against indigenous women and girls.

With the Canadian government under fire for failing in protecting and promoting fundamental human rights in Canada, are there legal avenues that may be available to uphold the rights of marginalized persons, rights enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Indigenous rights and the duty to consult

January 31st, 2013 by Paula Boutis and Jessica Weizenbluth

On January 8, 2013, Frog Lake First Nation and Mikisew Cree First Nation, through their respective Chiefs, launched judicial review cases in the Federal Court. They are challenging the passage of the now infamous federal government omnibus budget bills, Bill C‑38 (Jobs, Growth and Long‑term Prosperity Act, S.C. 2012, c. 19); and Bill C‑45 (Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, S.C. c.31).

Other Canadians who may oppose these bills can only express their displeasure with them at the ballot box. With Canada’s first‑past‑the‑post electoral system, and a significant fracturing of the centre and centre‑left, it seems like an uphill battle for the rest of the country to challenge these laws, widely considered to be anti‑democratic. For all the efforts of multiple environmental organizations and the actions of the opposition in the House of Commons (perhaps most poignantly, member of Parliament Elizabeth May), there’s not a whole lot the rest of us can do.

Enter, First Nations.

Paula Boutis joins Centennial College Faculty

January 30th, 2013 by Iler Campbell LLP

Iler Campbell is pleased to announce that Paula Boutis has joined the part‑time Faculty at Centennial College, in the School of Engineering Technology and Applied Sciences. She is teaching Environmental Legislation and Regulation to students enrolled in the Environmental Technology or Environmental Technician programs. Congratulations, Professor Boutis!

A small victory: decision grants broad rights to participate in environmental reviews, but changes to scope of EAs and cuts will hamper access, result in less thorough reviews

January 17th, 2013 by Paula Boutis and Jessica Weizenbluth

Last November Laura Bowman wrote a blog post about Alberta case law which might shed some light on how “interested party” status under the new federal Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012) might be interpreted, particularly as it relates to who is deemed to be “directly affected”. To have a right to participate in hearings under CEAA, parties must establish they are an “interested party”, and to be an interested party, the party must either be “directly affected by the carrying out of the designated project” or have “relevant information or expertise”.

Subsequent to Laura’s post, we learned of a decision of a Federal Review Panel (the Panel) constituted under CEAA which explored this question.

Continue reading “A small victory: decision grants broad rights to participate in environmental reviews, but changes to scope of EAs and cuts will hamper access, result in less thorough reviews”

2012 a big year for Competing Human Rights.

December 20th, 2012 by Celia Chandler

2012 has been a big year for the concept of competing human rights.

In May, the Ontario Human Rights Commission published a long-awaited Policy on Competing Human Rights. Earlier this fall, the media reported widely the case of the woman who was denied a haircut by a barber because his religion does not allow him to touch a woman. And today the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on the complex N.S. case: a case that pitted the right of the key witness in a sexual assault trial – the victim – to wear her religious face covering, against the rights of two accused men – her uncle and cousin – to have fair trials.

Continue reading “2012 a big year for Competing Human Rights.”

‹ Older Entries

› Newer Entries