Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)

Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)

SCCInfoBox
case-name=Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)
heard-date=October 11, 1991
decided-date=January 23, 1992
full-case-name=Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)
citations= [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236
docket=21946
history=-
ruling=
ratio=
SCC=1991-1992
Unanimous=Cory|

"Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)", [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case on the law of standing in Canada. In particular, the case sets out the criteria a public-interest group must meet in order to be allowed to mount a constitutional challenge in court.

Background

Prior to this case standing for public-interest litigants was governed by the ""Borowski" test," which was given broad application. During the hearings for Thorson and Borowski Martland and Laskin were fiercely at odds over the issue on interpreting the standard. Laskin felt that the borowski test allowed in people who merely wanted to challenge law for political reasons and not because they were true affected, while Martland felt the test followed the original principles in "Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada". [see [http://www.kramer.me.uk/adam/documents/AMK-%20Standing%20under%20the%20Canadian%20Charter.doc] and [http://www.yorku.ca/journal2/archive/articles/33_1_ross.pdf] ]

The Canadian Council of Churches is an incorporated interest group that represents the interests of a number of churches. The group's focus had been the current government policy on refugee protection and resettlement. In particular, they had been critical of the changes in the determination process of evaluating whether a refugee came within the definition of Convention Refugee as part of recent amendments to the Immigration Act, 1976.

The Council sought a judicial declaration that the amendments were unconstitutional, and therefore of no force or effect. The Attorney General of Canada moved to strike out the claim on the basis that the Council did not have standing to bring the action. At first instance, it was held that the Council had standing, but this was overturned on appeal. The issue before the Supreme Court of Canada was whether the Council has standing to challenge the validity of the amendments. The Court found that the Council did not have standing, and dismissed the appeal.

Opinion of the Court

The Court acknowledged the need for public-interest standing in principle, to ensure that government is not immunized from constitutional challenges to legislation. However, the Court also stressed the need to strike a balance between ensuring access to the courts and preserving judicial resources, citing the concern of an "unnecessary proliferation of marginal or redundant suits brought by well-meaning organizations pursuing their own particular cases certain in the knowledge that their cause is all important."

The current test for standing, as summarized in this decision, considers three factors:
# is there a serious issue raised as to the invalidity of legislation in question?
# has it been established that the plaintiff is directly affected by the legislation or, if not, does the plaintiff have a genuine interest in its validity?
# is there another reasonable and effective way to bring the issue before the Court?

On the facts of the case the Court found that the claim did raise some serious questions. Moreover, the claimant had a "genuine interest" in its validity. However, the claim must fail on the third and most onerous factor. Since a refugee would have standing to challenge the law, there would clearly be a reasonable and effective way to bring the issue to the Court. The Court dismissed the argument that refugees did not have effective access to the courts to bring a claim. Evidence showed that many are capable of making claims, which, in all, were better ways to challenge a law as there are concrete facts behind it. The Court further dismissed the claim that the potential imposition of a removal order would bar them from challenging it, as the Federal Court could grant an injunction to prevent deportation.

Notes

External links

*
* [http://www.ccdonline.ca/law-reform/Intervention/cdncoucilofchurches.htm Intervenors' factum]


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Поможем решить контрольную работу

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Canadian Council of Churches — The Canadian Council of Churches/Le conseil canadien des églises is an ecumenical Christian forum of churches in Canada. It was founded on 27 September 1944 at Yorkminster Baptist Church in Toronto, Ontario. It was originally the Canadian branch… …   Wikipedia

  • Minister of Justice v. Borowski — Minister of Justice (Canada) v. Borowski, is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision on the standard for allowing public interests to gain standing to challenge a law. The Court developed what is known as the Borowski test for public interest …   Wikipedia

  • Women's Legal Education and Action Fund — Women s Legal Education and Action Fund, referred to by the acronym LEAF, is a Canadian legal organization that performs legal research and intervenes in appellate and Supreme Court of Canada cases on women s issues. Founded in 1984, LEAF has… …   Wikipedia

  • Reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada by Justice Cory — This is a list of opinions written by Peter Cory, during his tenure on the Supreme Court of Canada between 1 February 1989 and 1 August 2003. Contents 1 1989 2001 2 2002 3 2003 4 2004 …   Wikipedia

  • Standing (law) — For other senses of this word, see Standing (disambiguation).In the common law, and under many statutes, standing or locus standi is the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action… …   Wikipedia

  • CANADA — CANADA, country in northern half of North America and a member of the British Commonwealth. At the beginning of the 21st century, its population of approximately 370,000 Jews made it the world s fourth largest Jewish community after the United… …   Encyclopedia of Judaism

  • cañada — /keuhn yah deuh, yad euh/, n. Chiefly Western U.S. 1. a dry riverbed. 2. a small, deep canyon. [1840 50; < Sp, equiv. to cañ(a) CANE + ada n. suffix] * * * Canada Introduction Canada Background: A land of vast distances and rich natural resources …   Universalium

  • Canada — /kan euh deuh/, n. a nation in N North America: a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. 29,123,194; 3,690,410 sq. mi. (9,558,160 sq. km). Cap.: Ottawa. * * * Canada Introduction Canada Background: A land of vast distances and rich natural… …   Universalium

  • Anglican Church of Canada — Primate The Most Rev. Fred Hiltz Headquarters Church House, Toronto, ON, Canada Territory Canada Membe …   Wikipedia

  • Law, Crime, and Law Enforcement — ▪ 2006 Introduction Trials of former heads of state, U.S. Supreme Court rulings on eminent domain and the death penalty, and high profile cases against former executives of large corporations were leading legal and criminal issues in 2005.… …   Universalium

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”