|
MAJORITY
LEAVES RAY OF HOPE FOR CANADA’S POOR |
|
|
Chief Justice McLachlin, writing for a majority of five justices out of nine, stated that despite previous cases in which the Court has suggested otherwise, “One day s. 7 (the right to life, liberty and security of the person) may be interpreted to include positive obligations.” However, she found that there was “insufficient evidence” in this case to support adopting such a “novel” interpretation. The question therefore is not whether s. 7 has ever been -- or will ever be -- recognized as creating positive rights. Rather, the question is whether the present circumstances warrant a novel application of s. 7 as the basis for a positive state obligation to guarantee adequate living standards. ... I leave open the possibility that a positive obligation to sustain life, liberty, or security of person may be made out in special circumstances. However, this is not such a case. The impugned program contained compensatory "workfare" provisions and the evidence of actual hardship is wanting. The frail platform provided by the facts of this case cannot support the weight of a positive state obligation of citizen support. The Court was deeply divided on the evidence in the case, with four of nine judges finding that a dramatically lower rate of assistance available prior to 1989 for employable singles not enrolled in workfare or training programs had profound effects on the dignity of recipients such as Louise Gosselin. Justice Louise Arbour, supported by retiring Justice L’Heureux-Dube, wrote a strong dissent, finding that the right to adequate food, clothing, housing and other necessities, recognized as central to international human rights, is a component of the right to “life, liberty and security of the person” in section 7 of the Charter. Justice Arbour finds
positive obligations to address poverty and homelessness clear from both
the architecture and the wording of the Charter. Bonnie Morton, from the Regina Anti-Poverty Ministry, welcomes the dissenting judges and is relieved that the majority accepted the possibility the Charter will be found in a future case to protect the right to adequate food, clothing and housing. However, she noted of the majority judgment: “It’s not good enough to say we may find protection for poor people under the Charter “some day.” We are hungry and homeless today and we rely on the Court to give our governments a clear statement about our constitutional rights and governments’ constitutional obligations.” Jacqui Ackerly of Together Against Poverty Society in Victoria was also disappointed that the majority of the Court would not go further in clarifying the obligations of governments to address poverty and homelessness: “U.N. human rights bodies have spoken out in recent years about the widespread violation of the right to adequate food, clothing and housing in so affluent a country as Canada. We are disappointed that the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada has been unwilling to issue a clear statement that these violations of fundamental rights under international law are also contrary to Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” Both Ms. Morton and Ms. Ackerkly, however, emphasized that this is the first such case to be considered by the Supreme Court, and that the door has definitely been left open for future challenges. Ms. Morton noted: “No other group fighting for its rights won everything in its first case. For poor people it will be the same. There is a lot of judicial education needed on these issues. Poor people across Canada owe a lot to Louise Gosselin for her courage in taking this case forward, and laying the foundation for future successes.”
Legal Analysis CCPI Members:
|
|
|
Page last updated December 19, 2002 |
