Background: the Hamilton ARPA Chapter asked the city to put up the “We’re for women’s rights” We Need a Law advertisement that included an image of an ultrasound.
The City rejected the ad saying, “the phrase “And Hers.” would need to be revised so as to not reflect personhood in relation to the [ultrasound image].” The Hamilton ARPA Chapter along with ARPA Canada have retained a lawyer to file an application for judicial review of the City of Hamilton’s decision.
You can watch more about the case below:
New Brunswick Abortion Funding Case (The Court of the Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick)
Status: ✅ ARPA was granted intervener status in December 2021.
Background: New Brunswick has never funded abortions performed at private clinics (they do fund abortions performed at hospitals). The Canadian Civil Liberties Association is challenging the regulation that excludes private abortion from public funding arguing it is unconstitutional and specifically that it violates section 7 (life, liberty and security of the person) and section 15 (equality) of the Charter.
Our Argument: ARPA Canada wants to argue that abortion is not a Charter right by looking at the history of abortion related cases. We will also argue that the provinces have the authority to determine how to allocate resources for healthcare and the Canada Health Act does not interfere with that jurisdiction.
You can read more about the legal issues here and the case here.
Canada Summer Jobs (Federal Court of Appeal)
Status: ARPA has applied to intervene
Background: A few years ago, the Liberal Government added a requirement to those applying for the Canada summer jobs grant that they attest that they respect abortion in order to be eligible to receive the funds. The Right to Life Association of Toronto and Area challenged the constitutionality of this requirement, but the Federal Court found it was a justifiable infringement of their Charter section 2(b) right to freedom of expression. This decision is being appealed.
Our Argument: ARPA Canada’s concerns include that the justification the government gave was that the pro-life groups disrespect, undermine, or violate Charter rights. We want to explain the history of Canada’s jurisprudence regarding abortion and argue that the Charter applies to the government and that a private organization is incapable of disrespecting the Charter.
You can read the decision that is being appealed here.
Canadian Alliance for Sex Work Law Reform – Prostitution
(Ontario Superior Court of Justice)
Status: ARPA has applied to intervene
Background: In 2014 Parliament passed criminal laws regarding prostitution that focused on penalizing those seeking to purchase or facilitating prostitution. An activist group is seeking to challenge the constitutionality of these law in order to make them more permissive of prostitution.
Our Argument: ARPA Canada wants to argue that the impugned legislation has an ameliorative purpose. That is, given the gendered nature of prostitution, women and girls are disproportionately impacted by the law. The plaintiffs are arguing this infringes the Charter’s section 15 equality guarantee but built into that section is an exception for law that are seeking to amend a disparity. Given that the women and girls involved in prostitution are having their bodies objectified and commodified and are more at risk for human trafficking, this law is better understood under that exception. ARPA also wants to put forward arguments relating to the freedom of expression and freedom of association elements of this case.
You can read more about ARPA’s approach to prostitution laws here.
Church Covid Restriction Cases
Status:
In BC the Court upheld the restrictions. It is now before the BC Court of Appeal with ARPA having submitted their written arguments recently.
In Manitoba the Court upheld the restrictions. We are waiting to see if the churches will appeal.
In Ontario the Court upheld the restrictions. We are waiting to see if the churches will appeal. (You can read more about this case here)
Background: Churches across the country faced unprecedent restrictions on the ability to gather for corporate worship. The leadership of churches have grappled with how to respond, and some churches decided that appropriate response was to appeal to the judicial branch of our government to determine the constitutionality of the restrictions. ARPA Canada has had the privilege of intervening in three provinces: BC, Manitoba, and Ontario. While of each these cases are different in terms of what the restrictions were and what legal arguments the churches put forward, they all at their core were asking the courts to find the restrictions on gathered worship unconstitutional.
Our Argument: ARPA’s arguments in each of the provinces have been similar. Focusing on our most recent submission, ARPA Canada made three constitutional arguments:
That Canada’s constitution and jurisprudence emphasize the existence of and legitimacy of authorities other than the civil government. For example, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed this institutional pluralism in a case called Reference re Secession of Quebec where they said our “constitution may seek to ensure that vulnerable minority groups are endowed with the institutions and rights necessary to maintain and promote their identities.” These institutions need protection and are owed deference in certain matters.
That the court ought to weigh the cumulative impingement of the various fundamental freedoms at issue in this case – including freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association. It is these compound Charter violations that need to be justified by the government.
Finally, part of the government’s duty to justify the impingement on Charter freedoms includes demonstrating that they chose measures from a range of reasonable alternatives. We argued that a range of reasonable alternatives may include percentage capacity limits. For example, a 25% and a 50% limit may both fall on the range of reasonable alternatives. But a total prohibition is something else entirely and fails this test.
You can read our previous written submissions in previous interventions here.
