LEAF TO SEEK LEAVE TO INTERVENE IN ALBERTA VS. CARON

For Immediate Release

LEAF to Seek Leave to Intervene in Alberta v. Caron
Toronto, January 15, 2010 - The Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) in coalition with other equality seeking organizations is seeking leave of the Supreme Court of Canada to intervene in Alberta v. Caron.

This Appeal concerns the discretion of the Courts to award advance costs to claimants who would otherwise be unable to litigate their public interest claims. The decision of the Supreme Court will have significant implications for access to justice for disadvantaged and marginalized groups.

The trial of Mr. Caron’s French language rights case lasted more than 80 days and was originally funded by the Court Challenges Program (CCP). After the CCP was cancelled in September 2006, Mr. Caron sought, and was granted an interim costs order on the basis of British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 371 (Okanagan). The Crown has appealed this order.

Audrey Johnson, Executive Director at LEAF notes that, “people in the lowest income levels in Canada are disproportionally women, financial constraints put potentially meritorious claims at risk every day and result in unconstitutional laws remaining unchallenged. Those who are the most excluded and marginalized are in greatest need of support to enforce their constitutional rights through public interest litigation.”

Ensuring respect for the rule of law and protecting and promoting the rights of marginalized groups are essential in a democratic society. The elimination of CCP, restricted access to legal aid, and the decreased availability of any other source of funding for test case litigation for equality seekers make the interpretation and application of the Okanagan test an even more pressing concern.

LEAF, in coalition with the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, the Charter Committee on Poverty Issues and the Poverty and Human Rights Law Centre, will submit that the legal principles applicable to the consideration of an application for advance costs should be grounded in the Court’s constitutional jurisprudence, particularly the constitutional commitments to substantive equality and to the protection of minorities; as well as international human rights law and jurisprudence.

-30-

Contact:
Audrey M. Johnson Joanna Birenbaum
Executive Director, LEAF Director of Litigation, LEAF
416-595-7170 ext 225 416-595-7170 ext 223

LEAF is a national, non profit organization committed to confront all forms of discrimination through legal action, public education, and law reform to achieve equality for women and girls under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For more information, please visit us at www.leaf.ca.