Law Times

www.lawtimesnews.com Page 6 January 21, 2008 / Law Times I n constitutional terms, 2007 was a significant year, both in and out of the courts. At the Supreme Court of Canada, last year may be remembered as a breakout year for Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin — her eighth heading up the top court. For the McLachlin court, 2007 will likely be remembered as a year in which it quietly but decisively abandoned several important and established precedents in constitutional cases and charted its own course. Graeme Mitchell, director of Saskatchewan's Consti- tutional Law Branch and frequent advocate before the court, has said that in 2007 the Supreme Court was "cleaning house." It overruled or disavowed at least five established constitutional precedents. In Kingstreet Investments Ltd. v. New Brunswick (Finance), the first decision of 2007, the court abandoned the common law bar to recovery for ultra vires taxes that had been previously embraced by members of the Antonio Lamer court. Then in Canadian Western Bank v. Alberta, the McLachlin court severely hobbled the longstanding doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity. Next, in R. v. Hape, the court repudiated its earlier jurisprudence on the extraterritorial application of the Charter and severely restricted the circumstances under which the Charter will have effect on foreign soil. In likely the most dramatic constitutional case of the term, the McLachlin court overruled certain aspects of the 1987 labour trilogy, which had held that the right to bargain collectively is not guaranteed by s. 2(d) of the Charter. Health Services and Su p p o r t - Fa c i l i t i e s Subsector Bargaining Association v. British Columbia held that the court had erred in the labour trilogy and that the right to bargain collectively was protected under the Charter. The past year was also notable for what the court did not do. In February, the court upheld most of the provisions of anti-terrorism legislation in Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), save for those that mandated an investigative hearing in the complete absence of any representation for the individual standing accused. The Harper government responded by tabling legislation last fall to allow for "special advocates" in security-certificate hearings. In Hislop v. Canada (Attorney General), the court refused to expand the scope of retroactive relief for constitutional violations. Same-sex partners had successfully argued that pension benefits had unconstitutionally been denied to them. They sought benefits going back to 1985, when s. 15 of the Charter went into force. Had the petitioners been successful, the ramifications for government public policy and the public purse would have been enormous — a fact obviously appreciated by the members of the court. In the continuing fight against the scourge of gun crime in our cities, the court upheld the police power to set up roadblocks looking for guns in R. v. Clayton. In Named Person v. Vancouver Sun, the court refused to subordinate informer privilege to the right to a fair trial. For those concerned about access to justice under our Constitution, 2007 was not a good year. Vancouver's Little Sisters bookstore was back at the court for the second time in a decade, but was unable to convince a majority of the judges that it should be awarded advance costs under the British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band doctrine to continue its battle against Canada Customs. The decision reduced the advance-costs doctrine to a fleeting dream for most litigants and likely restricted it to aboriginal cases. In British Columbia (AG) v. Christie, the court court didn't recognize a general constitutional right to state-funded counsel in civil cases. Those eager for a more in-depth review and analysis will have to wait until Osgoode's annual Constitutional Cases Conference in April. Some of the most notable constitutional developments in 2007 occurred outside the Supreme Court. Sadly, I must note the passing of Gerald Le Dain and the Antonio Lamer. Le Dain served on the Supreme Court between 1984 and 1988, in the early days of the Charter. Lamer, an unabashed defender of the Charter and of the independence of the judiciary, modernized the court under his leadership. Much of the constitutional landscape in Canada today — especially in criminal law — bears his imprint. Two cases at the Ontario Court of Appeal radically altered the scope of freedom of expression. In the first, a divided panel read the right to access to information into s. 2(b) of the Charter and held that it overrode solicitor-client privilege (Ministry of Public Safety and Security (Formerly Solicitor General) v. Criminal Lawyers' Association). Leave to appeal was granted and the court will likely hear the case this year. Meanwhile in Cusson v. Quan, the Court of Appeal recognized the public-interest-responsible-journalism defence to a claim for defamation, Finally, up the street at the University of Toronto, David Asper donated a record $7.5 million to create a centre for constitutional studies, which will include a litigation clinic to fill some of the void left from the abolition of the court challenges program. Adam Dodek is a visiting scholar at Osgoode Hall Law School. His email is adodek@ sympatico.ca. Now, we've heard everything L ast month, under the headline "We've heard everything, now" we wrote about a young lady in Sas- katchewan who OD'd on crystal meth, went into an 11-day coma, emerged with various physical maladies includ- ing a damaged heart, and sued the al- leged drug dealer whom she claims sold her the vicious substance. We won- dered if it was from the files of "is it the Apocalypse and nobody told us?" Well, the end is near. She won. So, grab our hips — the conga line to courtrooms across this land forms to the right. Right? Doesn't this mean addicts can now cash in on those juicy liability damages from their neighbor- hood drug peddlers? Let's hope not; time will tell how this really pans out, perhaps in a higher court. Sandra Bergen, 23, sued Clinton Davey in 2005, alleging he knew the drug was addictive. (And she didn't?) Bergen further alleged in her statement of claim that Davey's sale was "for the purpose of making money but was also for the purpose of intentionally inflict- ing physical and mental suffering." Bergen says she turned to the civil courts in frustration at a lack of action on the criminal side. "We found a differ- ent way to hold him responsible through the civil justice system," she told ctv.ca. "I sued him for negligence . . . for selling me drugs and getting me hooked when I was vulnerable," she told AFP. She hopes this will inspire others to sue their drug merchants. It probably will . . . But Bergen prevailed because Davey refused to identify his alleged supplier — named in the suit as John Doe — which prompted the trial judge to strike his statement of defence. While she says it's a precedent, it's by default. (His statement of defence said that Bergen "voluntarily consumed illegal drugs, thus contributing to her own con- dition . . . She assumed the risks." ) The resultant debate is on both sides of the proverbial fence. Here's a taste of reader comment on the ctv.ca website: ". . . Talk about an upside down court • system. Where is the drug dealer go- ing to get his money to pay this lady . . . sell more drugs? "The only way to hurt these dealers • is to go after their money. I think it's a great victory." ". . . Hopefully a smarter higher court • judge will throw this nonsense out." "This is absurd. She voluntarily • injested the drug, and someone else is to blame?" "If it gives the dealers of this coun- • try one more second of pause it is worth it." We agree with all of them. But while we feel for Bergen, this is just dumb. What about being accountable for your actions, especially whilst committing a criminal act? So, even if in our dreams we'd like a drug dealer to accept half the blame, his debt should still be paid in the criminal system. — Gretchen Drummie Editorial Obiter Editorial Obiter The year in constitutional review Law Times is printed on newsprint containing 25-30 per cent post-consumer recycled materials. Please recycle this newspaper. Publications Mail Agreement Number 40762529 • ISSN 0847-5083 Law Times is published 40 times a year by Law Times Inc. 240 Edward St., Aurora, Ont. L4G 3S9 905-841-6481. lawtimes@clbmedia.ca circulations & subscriPtions $141.75 per year in Canada (GST incl., GST Reg. #R121351134) and US$266.25 for foreign address- es. Single copies are $3.55 Circulation inquiries, postal returns and address changes should include a copy of the mailing label(s) and should be sent to Law Times Inc. 240 Edward St., Aurora, Ont. L4G 3S9. Return postage guaranteed. Contact Helen Steenkamer at: hsteenkamer@clbmedia.ca or Tel: 905-713-4376 • Toll free: 1-888-743-3551 or Fax: 905-841-4357. advertising Advertising inquiries and materials should be direct- ed to Sales, Law Times, 240 Edward St., Aurora, Ont. L4G 3S9 or call Karen Lorimer at 905-713- 4339 klorimer@clbmedia.ca, Kimberlee Pascoe at 905-713-4342 kpascoe@clbmedia.ca, Sarah Abbot at 905-713-4340 sabbot@clbmedia.ca or Sandy Shutt at 905-713-4337 sshutt@clbmedia.ca Law Times Inc. 240 Edward Street, Aurora, ON • L4G 3S9 Tel: 905-841-6481 • Fax: 905-727-0017 www.lawtimesnews.com President: Stuart J. Morrison Law Times Group Publisher . . . . . . . . . Karen Lorimer Associate Publisher . . . . . . . . . Gail J. Cohen Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gretchen Drummie Associate Editors . . . . . . . . . . .Helen Burnett Staff Writer . . . . . . . . . . . . Robert Todd Copy Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Matt LaForge CaseLaw Editor . . . . . . . . . .Jennifer Wright Art Director . . . . . . . . . . . . Alicia Adamson Production Co-ordinator . . . . . Mary Hatch Electronic Production Specialist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Derek Welford Advertising Sales . . . . . . . . Kimberlee Pascoe Advertising Sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sarah Abbot Sales Co-ordinator . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sandy Shutt ©Law Times Inc. 2008 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted or stored in a retrieval system without written per- mission. The opinions expressed in articles are not necessarily those of the publisher. Information presented is compiled from sources believed to be accurate, however, the publisher assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions. Law Times Inc. disclaims any warranty as to the accuracy, completeness or currency of the contents of this publication and disclaims all liability in respect of the results of any action taken or not taken in reliance upon information in this publication. COMMENT Second Opinion By Adam Dodek LT *Pages 1-16.indd 6 1/17/08 7:18:41 PM

• Cover