CCPI's Litigation

CCPI's litigation before Canadian courts and tribunals is always directed by a project team of low income individuals and legal advocates with particular expertise in the area.

CCPI has intervened in a number of important cases at the Supreme Court of Canada and at lower courts and tribunals, raising issues of concern to people living in poverty. CCPI's interventions have included the following:

Lovelace et al. v. Ontario et al., (S.C.C. File No. Court File No.26165) (heard in December, 1999). This case dealt in part with whether governments have an obligation under section 15 of the Canadian Charter, (equality rights) to take positive measures to address poverty among Aboriginal communities. CCPI argued that the Supreme Court ought to ensure that it interprets governments’ obligations under this section consistently with the finding of many U.N. human rights bodies that poverty in Aboriginal communities in Canada violates many international human rights.

J.G. v. Minister of Health And Community Services New Brunswick) et al, (S.C.C. No. 26005) [1998]. This case dealt with the rights of low income women involved in custody hearings in court to legal aid. CCPI argued successfully that the government is required by section 7 of the Charter (the right to life, liberty and security of the person) to take positive measures to ensure the provision of legal aid in such cases.;

Mavis Baker v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration [1998]. This case dealt with a review of a deportation order against a woman living in poverty who had four children born in Canada. The critical legal issue was whether Canada’s obligations under international human rights law needs to be considered in such a review. CCPI argued successfully that international law must be considered in such a review and ought to be a critical component of the interpretation of rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Kearney et al. v. Bramalea Ltd et al. (1998), 34 CHRR D/1 (Ont. Bd. Inq.). This case was brought forward by The Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation, challenging landlords policies of disqualifying low income applicants on the basis of arbitrary minimum income criteria. CCPI argued successfully that refusing rental housing to low income households on the basis of minimum income criteria constitutes discrimination against social assistance recipients, women, young people, single mothers, racial minorities and other groups protected under human rights legislation;

Eldridge v. A.G.B.C., [1997] S.C.J. No. 86. This case challenged the denial of funding for interpreter services for the deaf in the provision of healthcare in British Columbia. CCPI argued successfully that governments have a positive obligation under the Charter of Rights to address the needs of disadvantaged groups and that such obligations are fundamental to the guarantee of equality.

R. v. Prosper, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 236. This case dealt with the provision of duty counsel to poor people who are arrested or detained by the police. CCPI argued that the Charter of Rights ought to be interpreted as guaranteeing the right to counsel for people living in poverty.

Roberts v. Ontario (1994), 117 D.L.R. (4th) 297, dealing with whether governments are allowed, under human rights legislation, to discriminate in programs which ameliorate disadvantage (affirmative action programs or "special programs"). CCPI argued that advantaged groups may be excluded from benefits but that discrimination against poor people and other disadvantaged groups should not be permitted simply because a program is an "ameliorative" program.

Symes v. Canada, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 695. This case dealt with whether courts should defer to governments in areas of taxation and fiscal policy. CCPI argued successfully that these are often the most critical issues of inequality and that the equality guarantee would mean little to poor people if it did not apply in the area of social and economic policy.

Thibaudeau v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 627. In this case CCPI was granted intervener status jointly with the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, the Federated Anti-Poverty Groups of British Columbia and the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. The intervener coalition argued that the unacceptable levels of poverty among single mothers in Canada was a critical issue of inequality and discrimination and that section 15 of the Charter should provide an effective remedy.

Walker v. Prince Edward Island, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 407 dealt with whether section 7 of the Charter protects "economic rights" of professionals. CCPI argued that the Court should distinguish between economic rights of businesses or professionals and rights such as the right to food and housing contained in international covenants ratified by Canada.