Current Issues

rightswatchbuttonagain

Ongoing Cases

French

The CCLA has ongoing involvement in a number of court cases, including:

CCLA and CLC et al. v. Toronto Police Service and Ontario Provincial Police, Ontario Superior Court of Justice

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Labour Congress filed an application to restrain the TPS and the OPP’s use of the ‘long range acoustic devices’ or ‘sonic cannons’ during the G8 and G20 summits.

Globe and Mail v. Canada (Attorney General) and Groupe Polygone, Supreme Court of Canada

This case, heard in three concurrent appeals, concerned freedom of the press, freedom of expression and the openness of our judicial system. The Federal government’s “sponsorship scandal”, and the litigation that has flowed from it, serves as the backdrop to all three cases. CCLA submitted arguments regarding the confidentiality of journalists’ sources and the permissibility of a court order that prospectively banned a journalist from reporting on a subject. Oral hearings were held on October 21, 2009.

R. v. Gomboc, Supreme Court of Canada

This case concerns whether a warrant is required for the police to use a Digital Recording Ammeter (DRA) in order to monitor electricity consumption in a private home.  The CCLA will argue that use of a DRA must be accompanied by a valid search warrant in order to protect the reasonable expectation of privacy that individuals are entitled to while in their homes.

Galloway et al. v. Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness et al., Federal Court of Canada

This case raises critical issues regarding Canadians’ freedom of expression – including their right to hear others – and freedom of association. It involves a preliminary assessment by the government that a British Member of Parliament who was invited to speak in Canada was inadmissible because the government claimed he had engaged in terrorism and was a member of a terrorist organization.

Warman v. Lemire, Federal Court of Canada

This case concerns the constitutionality of the hate speech provisions in the Canadian Human Rights Act. In a ruling released in September 2009, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found that the Act’s hate speech sections were unconstitutional, and refused to apply the provisions.  That decision is now being judicially reviewed in the Federal Court.

Trent Terrence Sinclair v. Her Majesty the Queen (SCC), R. v. McCrimmon (SCC), and Stanley James Willier v. Her Majesty the Queen (SCC)

These cases are concerning the scope of the constitutional right to counsel in the context of a custodial interrogation.  The CCLA intervened at the Supreme Court of Canada and a decision is pending.

See Supreme Court of Canada case summaries of:

Watch archived webcasts of the hearings for:

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen, et al. (SCC) and Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd., et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, et al. (SCC)

The cases concern the constitutionality of mandatory publication bans regarding bail hearing proceedings when requested by the accused.  The CCLA has intervened at the Supreme Court of Canada and a decision is pending.

City of Vancouver, et al v. Alan Cameron Ward, et al. (SCC)

This case concerns whether an award of damages for the breach of a Charter right can made in the absence of bad faith, an abuse of power or tortious conduct.  The CCLA has been granted leave to intervene at the Supreme Court of Canada.

N.S. v. R. et al., Ontario Court of Appeal

This case concerns whether or not a Muslim woman, who is a complainant in a childhood sexual abuse case, must remove her veil in order to testify.  CCLA has been granted leave to intervene at the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Farès Bou Malhab v. Diffusion Métromédia CMR inc., et al., Supreme Court of Canada

This case concerns Quebec defamation law and whether generalized comments by a radio host regarding ‘Arab and Hatian taxi drivers’ can give rise to liability.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. Her Majesty the Queen, et al. (SCC)

Prior to 2005, Quebec journalists covering the judicial system were free to use recording equipment outside of courtrooms, and could broadcast excerpts of the courts’ official recordings of hearings.  In 2005, however, directives were applied to many Montreal courthouses that confined all interviewing and camera use to designated areas, and prohibited all broadcasting of hearings.  Shortly thereafter, the Quebec Ministry of Justice extended most of these restrictions to all courthouses in the province.  When these decisions were challenged as an unjustifiable restriction on freedom of the press, the majority of the Quebec Court of Appeal found that the Charter’s guarantee of freedom of the press did not apply in courthouses. CCLA will argue that newsgathering in courthouses and the broadcasting of open court proceedings convey crucial information about the nature and workings of the justice system, and that the Canadian public has a constitutional right to receive this information.  The hearing is scheduled for March 16, 2010.

R. v. Cornell (SCC)

This case is concerning whether the manner in which police conduct a search, in particular a unannounced ‘hard entry’, constitutes a violation of s. 8

Attorney General of Ontario v. Michael J. Fraser on his own behalf and on behalf of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Canada, et al., Supreme Court of Canada

The case concerns the legal protections, or lack thereof, available to Ontario agricultural  workers in their exercise of freedom of association.   CCLA argued that the government must provide insular, discrete and marginalized minorities with meaningful protection of their freedom of association.  The Supreme Court has not yet released its judgment.

Re Marriage Commissioners appointed under The Marriage Act, 1995, S.S. 1995, c. M-4.1;, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

The government of Saskatchewan has asked the Court to examine the constitutionality of two proposed bills that would permit civil marriage commissioners to refuse to perform marriages which run contrary to their personal religious beliefs.  The CCLA will intervene before the Court of Appeal to argue that the proposed amendments would unjustly violate the right to equality of same-sex couples.