CLF in the Public Square
Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ calls upon us to be advocates in His place here on earth; as He is our advocate now at the right hand of The Father. At Christian Legal Fellowship (CLF), we believe that Christ calls upon us to use our God-given professional skills to seek and restore justice to the nation and to the world.
When an issue arises either by CLF's own monitoring or when brought forward by the general public, CLF can respond in a number of ways.
CLF can respond by way of letter; open, op-ed or directly to appropriate people or groups.
CLF can sue on its own accord.
CLF has successfully applied to the courts at all stages for formal intervenor status for legal actions that have been commenced by another.
CLF can make educational submissions before local, provincial, national, and international bodies when they consider legislation in these areas.
CLF has Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) status at the United Nations and can make representations there.
CLF can appear on national and/or local television, radio and in the press and also at rallies and other public events.
Where formal court action or intervention is warranted, consistent with CLF mandate, and subject to available resources, CLF will make legal arguments and submissions based on Judeo-Christian principles and law. In recent years, CLF has been granted intervenor status by the Supreme Court of Canada and appellate courts in over a dozen cases affecting freedom of religion, conscience and speech, as well as life and family. In so doing, CLF has sought to communicate its position in a spirit of love and to demonstrate the principle that every individual is created in the image of God and therefore possesses a special dignity.
COURT INTERVENTIONS*
*-Special thanks to CLF's past Executive Director and General Counsel Ruth A.M. Ross (2000-13) for her establishment of and contributions to the CLF Intervention Project.
Carter et al. v Canada (Attorney General); Christian Legal Fellowship (Intervenor) - BC Crt of Appeal
On March 18 - 22, 2013, the British Columbia Court of Appeal will hear the appeal by Canada, as represented by the Attorney General (Christian Legal Fellowship as intervenor) of the lower court decision to strike down a section of the Criminal Code of Canada which prohibited assisted suicide in Canada. The plaintiffs suffered from late stages of Lou Gherig's disease. Both Carter and Taylor have since died; Carter by way of lethal injection in Switzerland and Taylor as a result of an infection from a perforated colon last October (2012).
Background: Twenty years ago the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in Rodriguez v British Columbia (Attorney General), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519, by a narrow 5-4 decision, found that section 241(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada, which banned assisted suicide, was constitutional. Notwithstanding, in June 2012 after 23 days of trial Madame Justice Lynn Smith of the British Columbia Supreme Court decided to strike down section 241(b) in the Carter case.
Justice Smith held that section 241(b) was unconstitutional as it did not treat those with severe disability equally. The plaintiffs in the case were represented by pro bono lawyers from the BC Civil Liberties Association - who ended up receiving a cost award of close to $1,000,000 by Justice Smith, although the lawyers were not asking to be paid. The government was given 12 months to come up with a new law. The lower court decision, the timetable, and the cost award have all been stayed by the BC Court of Appeal pending the appeal hearing by that court in late March, 2013.
Regardless of the outcome, it is hoped that this case will bring attention to the need for passionate palliative care to comfort the sick, and especially the gravely ill, during their greatest time of need: Matthew 25:31-46.
Stayed tuned on this CLF website and follow us on twitter.com/CLF_Canada for latest updates!
Thanks to Miller Thomson Law Firm for handling this intervention; especially CLF Member Gerald Chipeur Q.C. (Calgary office), and Matthew Morawski (Vancouver office), and Ruth Ross.
Prostitution Laws Challenge:
"Freedom and virtue must go together. As Edmund Burke once said, “Men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters. Os Guinness hit the nail on the head in his great book “A Free People’s Suicide” when he said that “the greatest enemy of freedom is freedom.” Guinness said our great democratic experiment requires a Golden Triangle of Freedom—a mutually reinforcing triangle of freedom, which requires virtue, which requires faith, which requires freedom, and so on. Freedom unfettered isn’t true freedom—and it becomes slavery and results in moral chaos.
Anyone from previous generations would look at all the contemporary sexual wreckage and conclude that we’re absolute fools. The Founders certainly understood that freedom requires moral restraint, because when we pursue only our own pleasure, we sacrifice future generations on the altar of hedonism.
What do you know? We are our brother’s—and sister’s—keepers." from www.breakpoint.org
Bedford v. Canada; Christian Legal Fellowship (Intervenor) - Supreme Court of Canada
Christian Legal Fellowship (CLF) intervened in this case at both lower court levels in order to protect vulnerable individuals who may find themselves forced into prostitution. The case is to be heard June 12, 2013 (tentatively) by the Supreme Court of Canada.
The case, first heard October 2009, was brought by three sex workers on the grounds that the Criminal Code provisions against operating a bawdy house, living off the avails of prostitution, or communicating for the purposes of prostitution violated s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In 2010, Justice Susan Himel of the Superior Court of Ontario struck down the relevant Criminal Code provisions as unconstitutional holding that they infringe ss. 2(b) and 7 the Charter in a manner that can not be justified in a free and democratic society (s. 1). Later that year the Ontario Court of Appeal stayed Justice Himel’s decision.
The Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision on March 26, 2012. The decision by Justices Doherty, Rosenberg, Feldman, MacPherson and Cronk JJ.A, was to strike the word “prostitution” from the definition of “common bawdy-house” in section 197(1) of the Criminal Code as it applies to section 210 of the Criminal Code. On January 29, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada stayed that decision. Notice of (Government) interventions thus far have been filed the Attorneys General for Quebec and British Columbia.
The constitutional questions for the Supreme Court of Canada to answer are stated as follows:
1. Does s. 210 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, as it relates to common bawdy-houses kept or occupied or resorted to for the purpose of prostitution, infringe s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
2. If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
3. Does section 212(1)(j) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, infringe s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
4. If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
5. Does section 213(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, infringe s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
6. If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
7. Does section 213(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, infringe s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
8. If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
At the Court of Appeal, Christian Legal Fellowship was granted leave to intervene in the application as a friend of the court pursuant to rule 13.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure: Bedford v. Canada (Attorney General), 2009 ONCA 669. The Court of Appeal held that the CLF met several of the criteria for intervention outlined in Ontario (Attorney General) v. Dieleman (1993), 16 O.R. (3d) 32 (Gen.Div.):
Ther court said that "Christian Legal Fellowship has a real, substantial, and identifiable interest in the subject matter of the application and an important perspective different from the parties. A description of Christian Legal Fellowship can be found at para. 8 of Bedford v. Canada (Attorney General), 2009 CanLII 33518 (Ont. Sup. Ct.)."
CLF maintains the following:
The relevant sections of the Criminal Code of Canada are not unconstitutional from the standpoint of actual harm caused to prostitutes and to society. These sections are a reflection of society’s views, soundly rooted in interfaith morality, which is that prostitution is an act that offends the conscience of ordinary Canadian citizens coupled with the legislative objectives of the laws (as recorded in the governmental debate leading up to the passing of the said laws as revealed in Hassard transcripts).
In a pluralistic society, mere moral assertions may not be enough to defend a law from judicial attack, but there are certain core values entrenched in society that are valid as legislative objectives. Prostitution is immoral and should be stigmatized, and that these sensibilities are fundamental social values that are rooted in the underlying values of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; the first words of which are:
"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law."
The legislature's enactment of these laws are based on legitimate, pressing and substantial concerns. If the laws are struck down by an active judiciary, it would send two wrong signals to society:
1. Vulnerable people in society could view prostitution as a valid and safe option to make a living; and
2. Courts can be used to make changes to or create criminal law.
This second wrong signal creates uncertainty and usurps the expectations of the citizens of this country that the amendment or creation of criminal law in Canada is the exclusive role of duly elected Members of (Federal) Parliament. Fundamental justice is founded on this fact.
If certain people want changes or removal of any law of this land, particularly criminal law, then they must lobby elected officials to effect change and not try to do so through the courts; courts which of themselves are only creatures of statute.
THANKS TO BENNETT JONES LAW FIRM IN TORONTO FOR HANDLING THIS INTERVENTION;
ESPECIALLY CLF MEMBERS ROBERT STALEY and RUTH ROSS
**PAST CASE INTERVENTIONS**
Saskatchewan Human Rights Commision v William Whatcott; Christian Legal Fellowship (Intervenor)-
Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released its ruling on this case involving freedoms of expression and of religious.
Here is the SCC decision restricting free speech in Canada:
http://t.co/aSwnLLql7n
Factum of Christian Legal Fellowship is here.
Actual webcast of the actual hearing at the Supreme Court of Canada:
http://scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/cms-sgd/webcast-webdiffusion-eng.aspx?cas=33676
SUMMARY:
On Feb. 27, 2013, Judgment on the appeal rendered; Deschamps J. took no part in the judgment., CJ LeB De F Abe Ro Cro, The appeal from the jwas udgment of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan, Number 1566, 2010 SKCA 26, dated February 25, 2010, heard on October 12, 2011, is allowed in part. The decision of the Tribunal is reinstated with respect to Flyers D and E. The Commission is awarded costs throughout, including costs of the application for leave to appeal in this Court.
The constitutional questions are answered as follows:
1. Does s. 14(1)(b) of The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, S.S. 1979, c. S-24.1, infringe s. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (freedom of religion)?
Answer: Yes
2. If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Answer: A prohibition of any representation that “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground is not a reasonable limit on freedom of religion. Those words are constitutionally invalid and are severed from the statutory provision.
The remaining prohibition of any representation “that exposes or tends to expose to hatred” any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground is a reasonable limit and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
3. Does s. 14(1)(b) of The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, S.S. 1979, c. S-24.1, infringe s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (freedom of expression)?
Answer: Yes
4. If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Answer: A prohibition of any representation that “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground is not a reasonable limit on freedom of expression. Those words are constitutionally invalid and are severed from the statutory provision.
The remaining prohibition of any representation “that exposes or tends to expose to hatred” any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground is a reasonable limit and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Appeal allowed in part, with costs.
Thanks to BENNETT JONES LAW FIRM, TORONTO FOR HANDLING THIS INTERVENTION;
Especially CLF MEMBER ROBERT STALEY, also DEREK BALL and RANJAN AGARWAL; and CLF's RUTH ROSS.
Background: In 2001 and 2002, William Whatcott distributed flyers on the topic of same-sex behaviour. Individuals who received the flyers filed a complaint against him on the basis of hate speech. The Plaintiffs were successful before the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission; however, the SK Court of Appeal found his statements were protected under the Charter provisions on free expression. The decision was appealed by the SK Human Rights Commission to the Supreme Court of Canada. CLF’s motion to intervene was granted; CLF argued for the protection of religious speech under section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
From the Factum of CLF: Religious speech is fundamental to the core values underlying our democratic system. It augments public discourse and reinforces liberalism. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code's prohibition on hate speech is overbroad and disproportionate to the legislation's objective of eliminating discrimination. It unfairly catches all religious speech. CLF does not intervene to support the respondent's case on its merits. But CLF does support his freedom of expression in a free and democratic society. By its nature, religious speech sometimes engages controversial topics. The impugned law chills this legitimate public debate, and undermines our democratic ideals.
Leblanc v Canada (Attorney General); Christian Legal Fellowship (Intervenor) - Quebec Superior Court
Similar to the Carter case (above), the plaintiff suffered from the same disease. Ms. Leblanc passed away from an infection in February 2013 before the matter could be heard by the Quebec Superior Court in Trois Rivieres scheduled for late March 2013. The case has been withdrawn from the dockets.
Special thanks (and merci!) to CLF Board of Directors Member Robert Reynolds of Montreal for his role as CLF counsel throughout this case.
Quebec Schools' Ethics and Religious Culture Curriculum Case - S.L. v. Commission scolaire des Chênes - Supreme Court of Canada
This case is concerned with the freedom of conscience and religion of parents who wish to pass on their religious convictions to their children. Freedom of religion includes the right to teach one’s religion. The parents in this case (the appellants) requested, and were denied, the right to have their children exempted from participation in the mandatory Ethics and Religious Culture (ERC) Curriculum. The Appellants contend that the right to teach one’s religion must begin with their children. It is part of their duty as believing parents to pass on their religion to their children without interference from the State. The Appellants rely on s.3 of the Quebec Charter and on s.2(a) of the Canadian Charter. Both of these sections identify freedom of conscience and religion as fundamental freedoms which are considered to be of primary importance. CLF was granted intervenor status to make submissions to the Supreme Court of Canada in this significant parental rights/religious freedom case.
Supreme Court of Canada:
Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada
Lower Court Decisions:
Court of Appeal of Quebec
(Feb. 24.10)
Quebec Superior Court
(Aug. 31.09)
Polygamy Reference Re: Section 293 of the Criminal Code
- Christian Legal Fellowship (Intervenor) - BC Supreme Court
The B.C. Supreme Court granted intervener status to Christian Legal Fellowship (CLF) in this polygamy reference case. Through the Reference, the Court determined whether Section 293 of the Criminal Code is consistent with The Charter of Rights and Freedoms and, if so, how the Section should be applied. CLF presented evidence of the harmful consequences of polygamy and is asking the Court to uphold Parliament’s authority to enact criminal laws that protect women and children from the practice of polygamy while carefully preserving religious freedom.
The following are the answers by Justice Bauman to the questions posed on the 2011 reference.
1. Is Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? If not, in what particular or particulars and to what extent?
For the reasons I have given, s. 293 is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms except to the extent that it includes within its terms, children between the ages of 12 and 17 who marry into polygamy or a conjugal union with more than one person at the same time.
For greater clarity, as I have indicated in my reasons, the inconsistency does not extend to persons who marry into polygamy before the age of 18 but are 18 years of age or older at the time of the laying of the Information in respect of conduct that occurred at or after 18 years of age.
Granting a constitutional remedy in light of that conclusion is not within the terms of this reference. If it were, I would respectfully adopt the approach taken by McLachlin C.J.C. in Sharpe, that is, confronted, as here, with a law that is substantially constitutional and peripherally problematic, one alternative is to read into the law an exclusion of the problematic application. Here, I would do so in respect of the noted group of potential accused persons.
Alternatively, but to the same effect, I would read down “every one” in s. 293 to exclude the noted group of potential accused persons.
2. What are the necessary elements of the offence in s. 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada? Without limiting this question, does s. 293 require that the polygamy or conjugal union in question involved a minor or occurred in a context of dependence, exploitation, abuse of authority, a gross imbalance of power, or undue influence?
It is interesting to note that the primary question posed here speaks of the “necessary elements of the offence in s. 293...”. The singular is used. That sits well with my conclusion that the elements of the polygamy offence (s. 293(1)(a)(i)) and those of the conjugal union offence (s. 293(1)(a)(ii)) are the same:
1. an identified person, who
2. with the intent to do so,
3. practices, enters into, or in any manner agrees or consents to practice or enter into,
4. a marriage, whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage, with more than one person at the same time.
Section 293 does not require that the polygamy or conjugal union in question involved a minor or occurred in a context of dependence, exploitation, abuse of authority, a gross imbalance of power or undue influence.
The parties did not in any substantial way deal with the offence created by s. 293(1)(b) of the Code and I have, accordingly, assumed that Question 2 is limited to the polygamy/conjugal union offence.
It remains for the Court to thank counsel for the parties and the Interested Persons. Their submissions on the law, their development of the record before the Court, and their demonstrated professionalism throughout have made the timely, efficient and informed disposition of this matter possible and, as well, a rewarding exercise of the process contemplated under the CQA.
November 2011 Decision: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/11/15/2011BCSC1588.htm
To access a number of additional documents associated with the Reference, click here
