Current Issues

--> Solitary Confinement
--> Afghan Detainees
--> Ongoing Court Cases

Previous cases

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has been involved in a large number of cases since its inception.  The following is a cronological list of many of the cases in which the CCLA has been granted intervener status.

  1. R. v. Morgentaler, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 616, where the general issue was whether the necessity defence was applicable to a charge of procuring an unlawful abortion under the Criminal Code (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  2. Nova Scotia (Board of Censors) v. McNeil, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 265, in which the issue was whether a taxpayer has standing to challenge legislation concerning censorship of films (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  3. R. v. Miller, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 680, in which one of the issues was whether the death penalty under the Criminal Code constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Canadian Bill of Rights (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  4. Nova Scotia (Board of Censors) v. McNeil, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 662, in which the issues were whether statutory provisions and regulations authorizing the Board of Censors to regulate and control the film industry in the province were intra vires the provincial legislature and whether they violated fundamental freedoms, including freedom of speech (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  5. Reference re Legislative Privilege (1978), 18 O.R. (2d) 529 (C.A.), in which the issue was whether a member of the legislature has a privilege allowing him or her to refuse to disclose the source or content of confidential communications by informants when testifying at a criminal trial (the CCLA intervened in the Ontario Court of Appeal);
  6. R. v. Saxell (1980), 33 0. R. (2d) 78 (C.A.), in which one of the issues was whether the provision in the Criminal Code for the detention of an accused acquitted by reason of insanity violated guarantees in the Canadian Bill of Rights, including the guarantee of due process and the protection against arbitrary detention and imprisonment (the CCLA intervened in the Ontario Court of Appeal);
  7. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Maclntyre, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 175, in which the issue was whether a journalist is entitled to inspect search warrants and the information used to obtain them (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  8. Re Fraser and Treasury Board (Department of National Revenue) (1982), 5 L.A.C. (3d) 193 (P.S.S.R.B.), in which the issue was whether termination of a civil servant for publicly criticizing government policy violated freedom of expression (the CCLA intervened before the Public Service Staff Relations Board);
  9. R. v. Dowson, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 144, and R. v. Buchbinder, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 159, in which the issue was whether the Attorney General could order a stay of proceedings under section 508 of the Criminal Code after a private information has been received but before the Justice of the Peace has completed an inquiry (the CCLA intervened in R v. Dowson in the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada. In R v. Buchbinder, the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  10. R. v. Oakes (1983), 40 O.R. (2d) 660, in which the issue was whether the reverse onus clause in section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act violated an accused’s right to be presumed innocent under the Charter (the CCLA intervened in the Court of Appeal);
  11. Re Ontario Film & Video Appreciation Society and Ontario Board of Censors (1984), 45 O.R. (2d) 80 (C.A.), in which the issue was whether a provincial law permitting a board to censor films violated the Charter’s guarantee of freedom of expression (the CCLA intervened in the Ontario Divisional Court and the Ontario Court of Appeal);
  12. R. v. Rao (1984), 46 O.R. (2d) 80 (C.A.), in which the issue was whether a provision under the Narcotic Control Act permitting warrantless searches violated the Charter’s guarantee of protection against unreasonable search and seizure (the CCLA intervened in the Ontario Court of Appeal);
  13. Re Klein and Law Society of Upper Canada; Re Dvorak and Law Society of Upper Canada (1985), 16 D.L.R. (4th) 489 (Div. Ct.), in which the issue was whether the Law Society’s prohibitions respecting fees advertising and communications with the media violated the Charter’s guarantee of freedom of expression (the CCLA intervened in the Ontario Divisional Court);
  14. Canadian Newspapers Co. Ltd. v. Attorney-General of Canada (1986), 55 0. R. (2d) 737 (H.C.), in which the issue was whether the provision in the Criminal Code limiting newspapers’ rights to publish certain information respecting search warrants violated the Charter’s guarantee of freedom of expression (the CCLA intervened in the Ontario High Court of Justice);
  15. R. v. J.M.G. (1986), 56 O.R. (2d) 705 (C.A.), in which the issue was whether a school principal’s seizure of drugs from a student’s sock violated the Charter’s protection from unreasonable search and seizure (the CCLA intervened in the Ontario Court of Appeal);
  16. Re Ontario Film & Video Appreciation Society and Ontario Film Review Board (1986), 57 O.R. (2d) 339 (Div. Ct.), in which the issue was whether actions taken by a film censorship board violated the Charter’s guarantee of freedom of expression (the CCLA intervened in the Ontario Divisional Court);
  17. R. v. Swain (1986), 53 O.R. (2d) 609 (C.A.), in which some of the issues were whether the provision in the Criminal Code for the detention of an accused acquitted by reason of insanity violated sections 7, 9, 12 or 15(1) of the Charter (the CCLA intervened in the Court of Appeal);
  18. Reference Re Bill 30, an Act to amend the Education Act (Ont.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1148, in which the issues were whether Bill 30, which provided for full funding for Roman Catholic separate high schools, violated the Charter’s guarantees of freedom of conscience and religion and equality rights (the CCLA intervened in the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada);
  19. Zylberberg v. Sudbury Board of Education (Director) (1988), 65 0. R. (2d) 641 (C.A.), in which the issue was whether an Ontario regulation which provided for religious exercises in public schools violated the Charter’s guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion (the CCLA intervened in the Ontario Divisional Court and the Ontario Court of Appeal);
  20. Tremblay v. Daigle, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 530, in which the issue was whether a father of an unborn child could obtain an injunction prohibiting the mother from having an abortion (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  21. Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892, in which one of the issues was whether a provision in the Canada Human Rights Act that prohibited telephone communication of hate messages offended the Charter’s guarantee of freedom of expression (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  22. R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697, in which the issue was whether the Criminal Code provision which made it an offence to willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group constitutes a violation of the Charter’s guarantee of freedom of expression (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  23. Lavigne v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 211, in which the issues were whether the use for certain political purposes of union dues paid by non­members pursuant to an agency shop or Rand formula violated the Charter’s guarantees of freedom of expression and association (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  24. R. v. Seaboyer, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577, in which one of the issues was whether the rape shield provisions of the Criminal Code violated the Charter’s guarantee of a fair trial (the CCLA intervened in the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada of Canada);
  25. R. v. Butler, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452, in which the issue was whether the obscenity provisions in section 163 of the Criminal Code violate the Charter’s guarantee of freedom of expression (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  26. J.H. v. Hastings (County), [1992] O.J. No. 1695 (Ont. Gen. Div.), in which the issue was whether disclosure to municipal councilors of a list of social assistance recipients violated the protection of privacy under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the CCLA intervened in the Ontario Court – General Division);
  27. R. v. Zundel, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731, in which the issue was whether section 177 of the Criminal Code prohibiting spreading false news violated the Charter’s guarantee of freedom of expression (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  28. Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Four Star Variety (October 22, 1993) (Ont. Bd. of Inquiry), in which the issues were whether convenience stores displaying and selling certain magazines discriminated against women on the basis of their sex contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code and if the Board of Inquiry’s dealing with the obscenity issue intruded on the Charter’s guarantee of freedom of expression (the CCLA intervened before the Board of Inquiry);
  29. Ramsden v. Peterborough (City), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 1084, in which the issue was whether a municipal by-law banning posters on public property violated the Charter’s guarantee of freedom of expression (the CCLA intervened in the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada);
  30. Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130, in which the issues were: (1) whether the common law of defamation should be developed in a manner consistent with freedom of expression; (2) whether the common law test for determining liability for defamation disproportionately restricts freedom of expression; and (3) whether the current law respecting non-pecuniary and punitive damages disproportionately restricts freedom of expression and whether limits on jury discretion and damages should be imposed (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  31. Ontario (Attorney General) v. Langer (1995), 123 D.L.R. (4th) 289 (Ont. Gen. Div.), in which the issue was the constitutionality of ss. 163.1 and 164 of the Criminal Code relating to child pornography (the CCLA intervened in the Ontario General Division);
  32. Adler v. Ontario, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 609, in which the issues were whether Ontario not funding of Jewish and certain Christian day schools violated the Charter’s guarantees of freedom of conscience and religion and of equality without discrimination based on religion (the CCLA intervened in the Ontario General Division, the Ontario Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of Canada);
  33. Al Yamani v. Canada (Solicitor General) (TD.), [1996] 1 F.C. 174 (T.D.), in which some of the issues were whether the provision in the Immigration Act regarding the deportation of permanent residents on the basis of membership in a class of organizations violated principles of fundamental justice contrary to section 7 of the Charter or the Charter guarantees of freedom of association and expression (the CCLA intervened in the Federal Court Trial Division);
  34. R. v. Gill (1996), 29 O.R. (3d) 250 (Ont. Gen. Div.), in which the issue was whether section 301 of the Criminal Code, which creates an offence of publishing a defamatory libel, constitutes a violation of the Charter’s guarantee of freedom of expression (the CCLA intervened in the Ontario Court – General Division);
  35. Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15, [1996] 1  S.C.R. 825, in which some of the issues were whether a teacher, who had been subject to discipline for making discriminatory anti-Semitic statements while off duty, could defend his conduct, at least in part, on freedom of religion (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  36. R. v. Stillman, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607, in which the issue was the explication of the circumstances, including police conduct, that would bring the administration of justice into disrepute within the meaning of subsection 24(2) of the Charter if unconstitutionally obtained evidence were to be admitted into a proceeding (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  37. Winnipeg Child and Family Services (Northwest Area) v. D.F.G, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 925, in which the issue was whether the law should permit the state to interfere with the privacy, dignity, and liberty of a pregnant woman where her actions may expose the fetus to serious injury (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  38. R. v. Lucas, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 439, in which the issue was whether section 300 of the Criminal Code, which creates the offence of publishing a defamatory libel, constitutes a violation of the Charter’s guarantee of freedom of expression (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  39. Thomson Newspapers Co. (c.o.b. Globe and Mail) v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 877, in which the issue was whether section 322.1 of the Canada Elections Act, which prohibits the publication of public opinion polls during the last 72 hours of a federal election campaign, constitutes a violation of the Charter’s guarantee of freedom of expression (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  40. Daly v. Ontario (Attorney General) (1999), 44 O.R. (3d) 349 (C.A.), in which the issue was the extent to which Ontario’s constitutionality protected Catholic separate school boards must adhere to the restrictions on employment discrimination contained in the Ontario Human Rights Code (the CCLA intervened in the Ontario General Division and the Ontario Court of Appeal);
  41. R. v. Mills, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668, in which the central issue was the appropriate balance to be struck between the rights of the accused and the rights of complainants and witnesses with respect to the production of medical and therapeutic records (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  42. Moumdjian v. Canada (Security Intelligence Review Committee), [1999] 4 F.C. 624, in which one of the issues was the constitutionality of Immigration Act provisions which impacted on the freedom of association (the CCLA intervened in the Federal Court of Appeal);
  43. United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1518 (U.F.C.W.) v. KMart Canada Ltd., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 1083, and Allsco Building Products Ltd. v. United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 1288 P, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 1136, in which the issue was whether leafleting by striking employees at non-struck workplaces is constitutionally protected expression (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  44. R. v. Budreo (2000), 46 O.R. (3d) 481 (C.A.), in which the issue was whether the provision in section 810.1 of the Criminal Code, which permits a court to impose recognizance on a person likely to commit sexual offences against a child, violates section 7 of the Charter (the CCLA intervened in the Ontario Court of Appeal);
  45. Martin Entrop and Imperial Oil Ltd (2000), 50 O.R. (3d) 18 (C.A.), in which one of the issues was the legality of an employer testing employees’ urine for drug use (the CCLA intervened in the Ontario General Division and the Ontario Court of Appeal);
  46. Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Attorney General), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1120, in which one of the issues was whether certain provisions of Canada’s customs legislation which permit customs officers to seize and detain allegedly obscene material at the border unreasonably infringe on the right to freedom of expression (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  47. Toronto Police Association v. Toronto Police Services Board and David J. Boothby (Ont. Div. Ct. Court, File No. 58/2000), in which the issue was the propriety of police fundraising and political activities, and the validity of a by-law and order issued by the Toronto Police Services Board and the Chief of Police, respectively, regarding police conduct (the matter settled prior to the hearing);
  48. R. v. Latimer, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 3, in which one of the issues was whether the Criminal Code provision for a mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment for second degree murder constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under section 12 of the Charter (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  49. R. v. Banks (2001), 55 O.R. (3d) 374 (O.C.J.) and 2007 ONCA 19 (docket no. C43259) in which one of the issues was whether provisions of the Ontario Safe Streets Act prohibiting certain forms of soliciting violate subsection 2(b) of the Charter (the CCLA intervened before the Ontario Court of Justice, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Ontario Court of Appeal);
  50. R. v. Golden, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 679, in which one of the issues was whether a strip search of the accused conducted as an incident to arrest violated section 8 of the Charter (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  51. R. v. Sharpe, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45, in which the issue was whether the Criminal Code prohibition of the possession of child pornography is an unreasonable infringement on the right to freedom of expression under the Charter (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  52. Trinity Western University v. British Columbia College of Teachers, [2001] 1 S. C. R. 772, in which the CCLA supported a private university’s claim to be accredited for certification of its graduates as teachers eligible to teach in the public school system, despite the fact that the university’s religiously-based code of conduct likely excluded gays and lesbians (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  53. Ross v. New Brunswick Teachers’ Association (2001), 201 D.L.R. (4th) 75 (N.B.C.A.), in which one of the issues was the extent to which the values underlying the common law tort of defamation must give way to the Charter values underlying freedom of expression, especially where a claimant who asserts the former at the expense of the latter freely enters the public arena (the CCLA intervened in the New Brunswick Court of Appeal);
  54. Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v. Brillinger, [2002] O.J. No. 2375 (Div. Ct.), in which the issue concerned the balance to be struck between freedom of religion and the right to equality (the CCLA intervened in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice);
  55. Chamberlain v. The Board of Trustees of School District # 36 (Surrey), [2002] 4 S.C.R. 710, which involved the balancing of freedom of religion and equality rights in the context of a public school board’s approval of books for a school curriculum (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  56. Falkiner v. Ontario (Ministry of Community and Social Services) (2002), 59 O.R. (3d) 481 (C.A.), in which the issues were the extent to which regulations made under the Family Benefits Act and the General Welfare Assistance Act amending the definition of “spouse” in relation to benefit entitlement (1) constituted discrimination under subsection 15(1) of the Charter, and (2) set the stage for unwarranted government intrusion into the personal and private circumstances of affected recipients (the CCLA intervened before SARB, the Ontario Divisional Court, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, and the Ontario Court of Appeal);
  57. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 558 v. Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages (West) Ltd., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 156, in which the issue concerned the extent to which the common law regarding secondary picketing should be modified in light of Charter values (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  58. Lafferty v. Parizeau (SCC File No. 30103), [2003] S.C.C.A. No. 555 (leave granted but settled before hearing), which examined the application of Charter freedom of expression values to defamation and the defense of fair comment (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada, but the matter settled prior to hearing);
  59. R. v. Malmo-Levine, R. v. Clay, R. v. Caine, [2003] S.C.J. No. 79, in which one of the issues was whether the criminal prohibition against the possession of marijuana violates section 7 of the Charter (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  60. Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 263, which examined the appropriate scope of both the tort of abuse of public office and the tort of negligent supervision of the police, and the appropriate legal principles to be applied when addressing the issues of costs orders against private individuals of modest means who are engaged in public interest litigation (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  61. La Congrégation des témoins de Jéhovah de St-Jérôme Lafontaine, et al. v. Municipalité du village de Lafontaine, et al., [2004] 2 S.C.R. 650, which examined the constitutionality of a municipal zoning decision that limited the location of building places of religious worship (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  62. R v. Glad Day Bookshop Inc., [2004] O.J No. 1766 (Ont. Sup. Ct. Jus.), in which one of the issues was the constitutionality of the statutory regime requiring prior approval and allowing the prior restraint of films (the CCLA intervened in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice);
  63. In the matter of an application under § 83.28 of the Criminal Code, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 248, which questioned inter alia the constitutionality of investigative hearings and the over breadth of certain provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  64. In the Matter of a Reference by the Government in Council Concerning the Proposal for an Act Respecting Certain Aspects of Legal Capacity for Marriage for Civil Purposes, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 698, which examined the equality and religious freedom aspects of proposed changes to the marriage legislation (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  65. R v. Mann, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59, which examined whether the police have the authority at common law to detain and search a person in the absence of either a warrant or reasonable and probable grounds to believe an offence has been committed (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  66. R v. Tessling, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 432, which examined the constitutionality of the police conducting warrantless searches of private dwelling houses using infra red technology during the course of criminal investigations (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);8
  67. Genex Communications Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada, [2005] F.C.J. No. 1440 (F.C.A.), which examined the application of the Charter’s guarantee of freedom of expression to a decision by the CRTC to refuse to renew a radio station license (the CCLA intervened in the Federal Court of Appeal);
  68. R. v. Hamilton, [2005] S.C.J. No. 48, which examined the scope of the offence of counseling the commission of a crime (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  69. R. v. Déry, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 669, which examined whether the Criminal Code contains the offence of “attempted conspiracy” (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  70. Montague v. Page (2006), 79 O.R. (3d) 515 (Ont. S.C.J.), which concerned the application of the Charter’s guarantee of freedom of expression to the question of whether municipalities are allowed to file defamation suits against residents (CCLA intervened in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice);
  71. Multani v. Commission Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 256, which concerned whether the Charter’s guarantee of freedom of religion allows a student to wear a kirpan in school (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  72. O’Neill v. Attorney General of Canada, [2006] O.J. No. 4189 (Ont. S.C.J.), which concerned the interaction of national security and Charter rights (the CCLA intervened in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice);
  73. Owens v. Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (2006), 267 D.L.R. (4th) 733 (Sask.C.A.), which concerned the application of the Charter’s guarantees of freedom of religion and expression to a provincial statute banning hateful speech (the CCLA intervened in the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal);
  74. Charkaoui et al. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] 1 S.C.R. 350, which examined, inter alia, the constitutionality of certain “security certificate” provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  75. R. v. Bryan, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 527, which examined the constitutionality of provisions of the Elections Act which penalize dissemination of election results from eastern Canada before polls are closed in the West (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  76. R. v. Clayton, 2007 SCC 32, concerning the scope of the police power to establish a roadblock and to stop and search vehicles and passengers (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  77. R. v. Hill, 2007 SCC 41, concerning the issue of whether police officers can be held liable in tort for a negligently conducted investigation (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  78. Bruker v. Marcovitz, 2007 SCC 54, which examined the extent to which civil courts can enforce a civil obligation to perform a religious divorce (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  79. Lund v. Boissoin AND The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. (2006), CarswellAlta 2060 (AHRCC), which examined the extent to which Alberta human rights law can limit a homophobic letter to the editor (the CCLA intervened before the Alberta Human Rights and Citizen Commission);
  80. Whatcott v. Assn. Of Licensed Practical Nurses (Saskatchewan), 2008 SKCA 6, concerning the freedom of expression of an off-duty nurse who picketed a Planned Parenthood facility – whether he should be subject to disciplinary action by the professional association of nurses for this activity (the CCLA intervened in the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal);
  81. R. v. Kang-Brown, 2008 SCC 18, and R. v. M.(A.), 2008 SCC 19, concerning the constitutionality of using dogs to conduct random warrantless inspections of high school students (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  82. Michael Esty Ferguson v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2008 SCC 6, which concerned the constitutional challenge of a law requiring mandatory minimum sentences (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  83. Elmasry and Habib v. Roger’s Publishing and MacQueen (No. 4), 2008 BCHRT 378, concerning the extent to which a British Columbia human rights law can limit the freedom of expression of a news magazine that had published offensive material about Muslims (the CCLA intervened before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal);
  84. Amnesty International Canada v. Canada (Minister of National Defence), 2008 FCA 401, concerning the extraterritorial application of the Charter, and specifically its application to Canadian Forces in Afghanistan and the transfer of detainees under Canadian control to Afghan authorities (the CCLA intervened in the Federal Court of Appeal);
  85. WIC Radio Ltd., et al. v. Kari Simpson, 2008 SCC 40, concerning the appropriate balance to be struck in the law of defamation when one person’s expression of opinion may have harmed the reputation of another (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  86. Toronto Police Services Board v. (Ontario) Information and Privacy Commissioner, 2009 ONCA 20 regarding freedom of information and the extent to which the public’s right to access electronic data requires that the institution render such data in retrievable form (the CCLA intervened in the Ontario Court of Appeal);
  87. R. v. Patrick, 2009 SCC 17, concerning the constitutionality of police conducting warrantless searches of household garbage located on private property (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  88. Robin Chatterjee v. Attorney General of Ontario, 2009 SCC 19, concerning the constitutionality of the civil forfeiture powers contained in Ontario’s Civil Remedies Act, 2001 (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  89. R. v. Suberu, 2009 SCC 333, concerning the constitutional right to counsel in the context of investigative detentions (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  90. R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32, concerning the appropriate legal test for the exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  91. R. v. Harrison, 2009 SCC 34, concerning the appropriate application of s. 24(2) of the Charter in cases where police have engaged in “blatant” and “flagrant” Charter violations (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  92. Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37, concerning whether a provincial law requiring that all driver’s licenses include a photograph of the license holder violates the freedom of religion of persons seeking an exemption from being photographed for religious reasons (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada);
  93. Whatcott v. Saskatchewan (Human Rights Tribunal) (19 September 2008), Saskatchewan 1566 (C.A.), concerning the extent to which a Saskatchewan human rights law can limit the expression of a man distributing anti-homosexual flyers (the CCLA intervened in the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal – decision pending);
  94. Matthew Miazga v. The Estate of Dennis Kvello, et al., 2009 SCC 51, concerning the appropriate legal test for the tort of malicious prosecution (the CCLA intervened at the Supreme Court of Canada);
  95. Johanne Desbiens, et al. v. Wal-Mart Canada Corporation (Quebec) (Civil) (By Leave) (SCC File No. 32427) and Gaétan Plourde v. Wal-Mart Canada Corporation (Quebec) (Civil) (By Leave) (SCC File No. 32342), concerning the interpretation of the Quebec Labour Code and the impact of the freedom of association guarantees contained in the Canadian Charter and the Quebec Charter (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada – decision pending);
  96. Douglas Quan, et al. v. Danno Cusson (Ontario) (Civil) (By Leave) (SCC File No. 32420), raising the novel question of a public interest responsible journalism defence, as well as the traditional defence of qualified privilege, in the setting of defamation law and its relationship to freedom of the press  (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada – decision pending);
  97. R. v. Breeden (2007), 165 C.R.R. (2d) 290, 2007 BCSC 1765, leave to appeal to B.C.C.A. granted, 2008 BCCA 145, concerning whether the constitutional right to freedom of expression applies in certain public and publicly accessible spaces (CCLA intervened before the British Columbia Court of Appeal – decision pending);
  98. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Alberta v. Lyle Marcellus Nasogaluak (Alberta) (Criminal) (By Leave) (SCC File No. 32423) concerning the availability of sentence reductions as a remedy for violations of constitutional rights (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada – decision pending);
  99. Trent Terrence Sinclair v. Her Majesty the Queen (SCC File No. 32537), R. v. McCrimmon (SCC File No. 32969), and Stanley James Willier v. Her Majesty the Queen (SCC File No. 32769), concerning the scope of the constitutional right to counsel in the context of a custodial interrogation (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada – decision pending);
  100. National Post, et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ontario) (Criminal) (By Leave) (SCC File No. 32601), concerning the relationship between journalist-source privilege, freedom of the press under s. 2b, and search warrant and assistance orders targeting the media (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada – decision pending);
  101. Peter Grant et. al. v. Torstar Corporation, et. al. (Ontario) (Civil) (By Leave) (SCC File No. 32932), concerning the creation and operation of a public interest responsible journalism defence (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada – decision pending);
  102. Stephen Boissoin and the Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. v. Darren Lund (Alberta) (Civil) (Action No. 0801-07613) which will examine the extent to which Alberta human rights law can limit a homophobic letter to the editor (the CCLA intervened before the Queen’s Bench of Alberta – decision pending);
  103. R. v. Chehil (Nova Scotia) (Criminal) (Nova Scotia Court of Appeal File No. CAC 307354) concerning the permissibility of warantless searches of airline passenger information by police (the CCLA intervened at the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal – decision pending);
  104. Globe and Mail, a division of CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada, et al, (Quebec) (Civil) (By Leave) (SCC File Nos. 33114 and 33097) concerning the disclosure of confidential journalistic sources in the civil litigation context, and the constitutionality of a publication ban (the CCLA intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada – decision pending);
  105. Farès Bou Malhab v. Diffusion Métromédia CMR inc., et al., (Quebec) (Civil) (By Leave) (SCC File No. 32931) concerning statements made by a radio host, and examining the scope and nature of defamation under Quebec civil law in the context of the freedom of expression guarantees found in the Quebec and Canadian Charters (the CCLA has been granted leave to intervene at the Supreme Court of Canada);
  106. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen, et al. (SCC File No. 32865) and Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd., et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, et al. (SCC File No. 33085), concerning the constitutionality of mandatory publication bans regarding bail hearing proceedings when requested by the accused (the CCLA has been granted leave to intervene at the Supreme Court of Canada);
  107. Warman v. Fournier, Fournier and John Does 1-8, (Ontario) (Civil)  (Ontario Superior Court of Justice File No. 09-DV-1512) concerning the appropriate legal test when a litigant in a defamation action is attempting to identity previously-anonymous internet commentators (the CCLA has been granted leave to intervene at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice);
  108. R. v. N.S. et al., (Ontario) (Criminal) (Ontario Court of Appeal File No. C50534) concerning the balancing of freedom of religion and conscience and fair trial rights, where a sexual assault complainant is a religious Muslim woman and the accused has requested that she be required to remove the veil before testifying (the CCLA has been granted leave to intervene at the Ontario Court of Appeal); and
  109. Prime Minister of Canada, et al. v. Omar Ahmed Khadr (FC) (Civil) (By Leave) (SCC File No. 33289) concerning Charter obligations to Canadian citizens detained abroad and the appropriateness of Charter remedies in respect to matters affecting the conduct of foreign relations (the CCLA has been granted leave to intervene at the Supreme Court of Canada).