British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Council of Canadians with Disabilities

British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Council of Canadians with Disabilities

The Downtown Eastside three-factor framework governs public interest standing; legality and access to justice are important but do not merit particular weight over other factors; a directly affected co-plaintiff is not required if a concrete and well-developed factual setting can be shown or is likely to be...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2022 SCC 27
Parties
Appellant/respondent on Cross Appeal: Attorney General of British Columbia; Respondent/appellant on Cross Appeal: Council of Canadians with Disabilities
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Challenge — Public Interest Standing (charter Ss.7 and 15) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the British Columbia Court of Appeal Following Summary Dismissal for Lack of Standing at First Instance
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; leave to cross-appeal granted; cross-appeal allowed; Council of Canadians with Disabilities granted public interest standing; special costs awarded on full indemnity basis
Legal Topics
Public Interest Standing, Legality, Access to Justice, Justiciability, Sufficiency of Factual Setting, Special Costs
Source Language
english
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Law Public Interest Standing Legality Access to Justice Justiciability +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General of British Columbia

Appellant/respondent on Cross Appeal

Council of Canadians with Disabilities

Respondent/appellant on Cross Appeal

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Challenge — Public Interest Standing (charter Ss.7 and 15) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the British Columbia Court of Appeal Following Summary Dismissal for Lack of Standing at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Do the principles of legality and access to justice merit particular weight in the public interest standing analysis?
  2. 2 Is an individual co-plaintiff required to provide a sufficiently concrete and well-developed factual setting for public interest standing?
  3. 3 Should the Council of Canadians with Disabilities be granted public interest standing to challenge BC mental health legislation?

Ratio Decidendi

The Downtown Eastside three-factor framework governs public interest standing; legality and access to justice are important but do not merit particular weight over other factors; a directly affected co-plaintiff is not required if a concrete and well-developed factual setting can be shown or is likely to be forthcoming; weighing the factors cumulatively the organization was granted public interest standing, appeal dismissed and cross-appeal allowed with special costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; leave to cross-appeal granted; cross-appeal allowed; Council of Canadians with Disabilities granted public interest standing; special costs awarded on full indemnity basis

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Leave to cross-appeal granted