Subscribe to our RSS feed
Find us on Facebook
Follow us on TwitterOn December 20, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada released a landmark decision on Canada’s prostitution laws (Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford). This decision represents a huge victory for Canada’s sex workers by recognizing that the existing legal framework increases the risk of harm to the lives and safety of individuals working in the industry. The decision has, however, quickly become controversial with anti-prostitution advocates vigorously arguing that the Court has effectively endorsed the exploitation of women. This criticism is misdirected because the Bedford decision is not about whether prostitution should be legal in Canada — prostitution has always been legal here. If you don’t like it, complain to Parliament.
Posts Tagged ‘Supreme Court of Canada’
Supreme Court ruling stirs national debate on sex work
January 6th, 2014 by Priya SarinWhen in doubt, report: Castonguay Blasting upheld at SCC
October 21st, 2013 by Laura BowmanLast week the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision in the Castonguay Blasting case, which I have previously written about. Despite numerous critics of the Court of Appeal’s decision from the environmental law bar, the Supreme Court made the right decision and upheld the Court of Appeal’s ruling that all discharges of contaminants are reportable under the Ontario Environmental Protection Act.
Continue reading “When in doubt, report: Castonguay Blasting upheld at SCC”
Shark Fin Ban Case: Does Biodiversity Have Anything to Do With Social and Civic “Well-Being”?
April 2nd, 2013 by Laura BowmanIn November 2012 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that Toronto’s shark fin by-law was ultra vires.
Eng v. Toronto (City) was an application seeking a declaration that By-law No. 12347-2011 of the City of Toronto (Shark fin by-law) was ultra vires and of no force and effect. The by-law provides, in section 3, that “no person shall possess, sell or consume shark fin or shark fin food products within the city of Toronto”. The by-law was passed by a vote of 38-4 at council. The applicants argued that the shark fin by-law’s purpose was directed against the extinction of sharks and lacked a proper municipal purpose. The court agreed that this environmental threat was a purpose of the ban on shark fin food products as it was “a theme that persists in the public record of the proposed ban” and “environmental well-being of the City” was mentioned the preamble.
The applicants submitted that the City was the “wrong level of government” for the by-law and that there was no identifiable environmental benefit to the city. The court rejected the first argument and accepted the second.
Read more in the Ontario Bar Association’s Envronews (pdf) »
Upholding the rights of marginalized groups through public interest litigation
February 28th, 2013 by Shelina AliCanada’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?
2012 a big year for Competing Human Rights.
December 20th, 2012 by Celia Chandler2012 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.”
Ontario Court of Appeal confirms broad scope of environmental protection in the Ontario Environmental Protection Act but Supreme Court of Canada hearing pending.
October 18th, 2012 by Laura BowmanThe Supreme Court of Canada recently granted leave to hear an important Environmental Protection Act case. In Ontario (Environment) v. Castonguay Blasting Ltd., 2012 ONCA 165 (CanLII) Castonguay, a construction subcontractor caused fly rock to be flung 90 metres into the air during highway construction near Marmora, Ontario in 2007. The fly rock caused damage to a nearby home and vehicle.
A year later, Castonguay was charged with failure to report the discharge of a contaminant under s.15(1) of the Ontario Environmental Protection Act (EPA). This provision requires reporting of discharges of contaminants likely to cause an adverse effect to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, (MOE) so that it can be investigated and addressed accordingly.
