 |
 |
|
|
Canadian Constitution FoundationOur Court CasesOur court cases defend the constitutional freedoms of Canadians in the courts. We may be actively representing our clients, serving as an intervenor, or providing financial support, but the goal is the same: to defend the individual freedoms, economic liberty and equality before the law of every Canadian. Current Projects R. v. Montague; Attorney General of Ontario v. Montague et al.Defending Canadians from Civil Forfeiture
In an attempt to challenge what they believed to be unconstitutional gun licensure laws, Bruce and Donna Montague deliberately allowed their firearms licensces to expire. They were denied the opportunity to make a constitutional challenge in the ensuing legal battle and now face confiscation of Bruce's business inventory (Bruce was a gunsmith) and their home. «CCF Publications» «Backgrounder»
Elizabeth Bernard v. Attorney General of Canada, et al.Defending the freedom of Canadians to NOT associate
Elizabeth Bernard is a government employee who has refused to join the public service unions that have represented her colleagues. The unions have made numerous attempts to acquire her home contact information. Elizabeth has thus far resisted these attempts, on the grounds that they are akin to forced association with the union. Elizabeth is going to the Supreme Court of Canada to argue that she (like all Canadians) has the freedom NOT to associate with organizations like unions.
Jones v. Min. of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Montana Jones, a breeder of rare Shropshire sheep, has been notified by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) that they intend to destroy 41 of her apparently healthy sheep. «CCF Publications» «CCF Correspondence» «Press Releases» «Related Publications» «Federal Court»
Cambie v. MSCBC et al.Litigating for patient choice in health care
«Related Publications» «No Choice?» «Press Releases» «CCF Publications» «Related Audio»
Irvin Leroux v. CRAProtecting Canadian taxpayers from CRA malfeasance
The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) has taken on the case of Irvin Leroux, whose court action against Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) faces a dismissal application in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on Wednesday March 24, 2010. [ Read More ]«Related Publications» «Press Releases» «Related Audio» «Related Video» «Court Documents»
R. v. Michael SchmidtDefending consumer choice in Canada
In 2006, Michael Schmidt, an Ontario dairy farmer, was charged with numerous violations of both the Milk Act as well as the Health Promotion and Protection Act for selling raw milk at the request of his customers. The Canadian Constitution Foundation is supporting Michael Schmidt in order to defend consumer choice, freedom of contract, and the right to earn an honest living free from government regulation that is arbitrary, unreasonable, unnecessary and unfair. «Ontario Court of Justice» «Ontario Court of Appeal» «CCF Publications» «Press Releases» «Related Audio» «CCF News Conference» «Related Media» «got freedom?»
McCreith & Holmes v. OntarioYour 'Right to Life' includes timely access to health care
Had Lindsay McCreith and Shona Holmes not paid out of pocket for essential medical treatment in the United States, Shona Holmes would now be permanently blind and Lindsay McCreith would be dead. In what has been dubbed the "Ontario Chaoulli," they are challenging the laws that prop up the Ontario government’s inefficient monopoly over the province’s essential health services. [ Read More ]«Related Video» «Related Media» «CCF Publications» «CCF Video» «Related Audio»
Chief Mountain v. Canada
Enacted in 2000, the Nisga’a Final Agreement allowed for the creation of a semi-sovereign Nisga’a “Nation-State” within the borders of British Columbia. Its government has the ability to deny Nisga’a citizenship to people living on its lands even if they are hereditary Nisga’a. Chief Mountain and Mercy Thomas, along with other Nisga’a peoples are challenging the Nisga’a Final Agreement’s infringement on their constitutionally protected rights as Canadians. [ Read More ]«CCF Publications» «Press Releases» «Related Audio»
Concluded Projects Moore v. BC Ministry of EducationAdvancing true equality in the defence of BC taxpayers
In 2005, the BC Human Rights Tribunal decided that the BC Ministry of Education had discriminated against Jeffrey Moore by failing to provide him with a publicly funded program tailored for dyslexic children when the Ministry de-funded the program during budget cuts in the 1990s. Now at the SCC, this case will decide whether the BC Human Rights Tribunal has the authority to dictate what services the BC government provides and at what cost to BC taxpayers. «Press Releases» «Supreme Court of Canada» «CCF Publications»
Trent Hills v. BacherGovernment misleads citizens about the law
In 2009, Kelly and Shawn Bacher built a chicken coop in their backyard. They did so only after confirming with municipal employees that it was legal to have chickens on their property. But in 2011, by-law officers began demanding they remove their "illegal" chickens. Attempts to persuade city council to amend the by-law have been unsuccessful, and the Bachers face large fines if they won't get rid of their chickens. The charges against the Bachers were formally withdrawn in provincial court on June 14. [ Read More ]«Related Publications» «Press Releases»
Galganov v. Township of RussellDefending freedom of expression
The CCF has been granted leave to intervene to argue before the Ontario Court of Appeal that a Russell Township bylaw infringes freedom of expression because it compels and coerces people to express themselves in a language they didn't freely choose, and in only English and French. «CCF Publications» «Press Releases» «ON Court of Appeal» «Related Audio»
Jaworski v. Municipality of ClaringtonProtecting freedom of assembly
The Jaworski Family was facing large fines and by-law charges just for holding an annual seminar on their property. Acting to defend the Jaworskis and the freedom of assembly of all Canadians, the CCF convinced the municipality to drop the charges.
Whatcott v. Saskatchewan Human Rights TribunalFreedom of Speech on Trial
The Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal ordered William Whatcott to pay over $17,000 in damages to four people after they were offended by flyers he was distributing in Regina and Saskatchewan. The Tribunal's decision violated Mr. Whatcott's Freedom of Expression. The CCF has, and is continuing to seek intervener status in this case in defence of these rights for all Canadains. «Related Video» «CCF Publications» «Press Releases» «Related Audio» «CCF Factum» «Court of Appeal Judgement»
Boissoin v. Lund(Formerly Boissoin v. Alberta Human Rights Commission)
U of C professor Daren Lund filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission after he was offended by a letter to the editor Rev. Boissoin wrote to the Red Deer Advocate, regarding homosexuality and the public school curriculum, and other public policy issues. The Alberta Human Rights Commission ordered Boissoin to pay $5,000 to Lund, and to write and publish a formal apology. Boissoin was also ordered to refrain forever from saying anything “disparaging” about homosexuals. The Canadian Constitution Foundation intervened in Boissoin v. Lund to argue in defence of freedom of expression. [ Read More ]«CCF Publications» «Press Releases» «Court Documents» «Queen's Bench Judgement»
John Fulton v. Ontario Human Rights Tribunal
In 2006, gym owner John Fulton was confronted by a pre-operative transgendered woman asking to join Fulton's women's only gym. Wanting to first consider the reactions of his clients, Mr. Fulton hesitated in providing the membership and, as a result, found himself facing a complaint in the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. The Canadian Constitution Foundation supported John Fulton in his defence against the complaint brought under Ontario's human rights laws. «Press Releases» «Related Audio» «CCF Publications»
Free Speech on Campus
In January of 2009, the University of Calgary charged several members of a Campus Pro-Life club with trespassing on their own campus because the students refused to adhere to the University's arbitrary attempt at censoring their anti-abortion display. Shortly thereafter, the University's Student's Union decertified the club. The Canadian Constitution Foundation supported the students in their fight against the trespassing charges, and represented the students when they appealed the student union's decertification. [ Read More ] «Related Media» «CCF Video» «Related Audio» «CCF Publications»
R. v. Kapp
R. v. Kapp originated with protests by BC fisherman, in 1998, of the government’s policy of granting separate commercial openings for native fishermen with Tsawwassen or Musqueam bloodlines. This protest included fishermen from many different ancestries. John Carpay of the Canadian Constitution Foundation represented the Japanese Canadians Fishermens Association (JCFA) intervening in the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Kapp. The argument put forward by the appellants held the government’s policy of creating racially based ‘fishing areas’ was in direct violation of Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. [ Read More ]
Kingstreet Investments v. New BrunswickIn January 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously in favour of principles advanced by the Canadian Constitution Foundation as an intervener in Kingstreet Investments v. New Brunswick. Adopting arguments put forward by the Canadian Constitution Foundation, the Court ordered the provincial government to repay over one million dollars… [ Read More ] «CCF Publications» «Related Media» «Holding Governments Accountable to Canada's Constitution» «Court Documents»
To make a donation in support of one or more of our court cases, or one of our litigation priorities Click Here! |
 |
 |
 |
|
