 |
 |
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 Consumer Choice Litigation(challenging the raw milk ban)
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. «News Releases» «CCF Publications» «CCF News Conference» «Related Audio» «Related Media»
Freedom of Religion and Conscience in Quebec
The Canadian Constitution Foundation is supporting the parents in their challenge, and will continue to support them should the decision be appealled. «CCF Video» «CCF Publications»
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 is supporting John Fulton in his defence against the complaint brought under Ontario's human rights laws. «News 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 is supporting the students in their fight against the trespassing charges, and will be representing the students as they appeal the student union's decertification. [ Read More ] «Related Media» «CCF Video» «CCF Publications» «Related Audio»
McCreith & Holmes v. Ontario
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. It’s government has the ability to deny Nisga’a citizenship to people living on it’s 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 ]
Concluded Projects 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 ]«Court Documents» «Queen's Bench Judgement» «CCF Publications»
Whatcott v. Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal
Should peacefully expressing ones own views and beliefs be considered a crime in this country? Should our constitutionally enshrined right to freedom of expression be trumped by the new 'human right' to not be offended? The Canadian Constitution Foundation intervened in Whatcott v. Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal to defend freedom of expression. The CCF does not intervene in defence of the content of the speech, but in defence of every Canadian's right to free expression. As Voltaire reputedly said, “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” [ Read More ]«CCF Publications» «Court of Appeal Judgement» «Press Releases» «CCF Factum» «Related Audio»
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! |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
