Current and Recent Cases
Reference concerning constitutionality of s.293 of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c.C-46
SWUAV v AG Canada
Rick v Brandsema
R. v Watson and Spratt
Reference by the Lieutenant Governor in Council set out in Order in Council No.553 dated October 22, 2009 concerning the constitutionality of s.293 of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c.C-46
West Coast LEAF has been granted leave to intervene at the British Columbia Supreme Court in the Reference on the constitutionality of section 293 of the Criminal Code - the so-called "Polygamy Provision".
This reference requires the Court to determine whether s.293 of the Criminal Code (the “Polygamy Provision”) is constitutional, including whether the provision can be interpreted to ensure that it is constitutionally valid. West Coast LEAF has a demonstrable historical and current interest in the practice of polygamy, in particular, in Bountiful, British Columbia, and in the impact of that practice on the equality rights of women and children. West Coast LEAF seeks leave to intervene on that basis.
The practice of polygamy can limit women's choices and create serious vulnerability for young women and girls to sexual and other expolitation.
"We intend to argue that the polygamy provision of the Criminal Code is there to prevent the practice of polygamy where such practice is exploitative or abusive of women and children, and so should be interpreted to prohibit harmful conduct," says West Coast LEAF Legal Director Kasari Govender.
West Coast LEAF also continues to work with community partners to ensure that women and children who choose to leave the Bountiful community can access the services and support they need.
The trial is scheduled to take place from November 15, 2010 to January 31, 2011.
Back to Top
SWUAV v AG Canada
West Coast LEAF intervened at the BC Court of Appeal on the issue of “public interest standing” in SWUAV v AG Canada.
The case involves an organization of women called the Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence (SWUAV) who are bringing a constitutional challenge to the provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with prostitution. The case was dismissed by the BC Supreme Court in December 2008 because the Court found that this women’s organization, and an individual former sex worker, do not have “public interest standing” to challenge the constitutionality of the Criminal Code provisions.
West Coast LEAF is intervening in the distinct matter of “public interest standing” being denied to these women through their representative organization – to argue that such organizations ought to be able to bring forward important constitutional cases on behalf of the many women who do not have effective access to the justice system on their own.
The appeal was heard on January 21 and 22, 2010.
The factum for the intervention is available here.
Back to Top
Rick v Brandsema
Rick v Brandsema is a BC family law case in which the parties entered a separation agreement that left Mr. Brandsema with substantially more assets than Ms. Rick after 27 years of marriage. Ms. Rick suffered mental health challenges when the agreement was signed and identified herself as a survivor of domestic violence. The trial judge determined that Mr. Brandsema failed to disclose, or properly value, family and jointly held business assets and awarded Ms. Rick funds to equalize the property division. The Court of Appeal overturned that result, but the Supreme Court of Canada accepted Ms. Rick’s appeal and restored the trial judge’s decision. The Supreme Court of Canada found that the parties’ separation agreement was unfair and invalid because Mr.Brandsema exploited Ms. Rick’s vulnerabilities and purposely misled her about the state of their financial affairs.
LEAF and West Coast LEAF presented oral arguments in Rick v Brandsema at the Supreme Court of Canada on October 14, 2008.
The factum for the intervention is available here.
The Supreme Court of Canada decision in Rick is here.
Back to Top
R. v Watson and Spratt
Watson and Spratt challenged the Access to Abortion Services Act, which creates a no-protest (“bubble”) zone around abortion clinics to allow women access to clinic services free of unwanted approaches by anti-abortion protesters. Watson and Spratt argued that the bubble zone law violated their Charter right to freedom of expression.
Watson/Spratt is an extension of the Lewis and Demers cases. In R. v. Demers the BC Court of Appeal decided to reject Mr. Demers’ appeal on the basis of section 7 arguments; however, the case did not directly determine the freedom of expression issues. At issue in Watson/Spratt was whether or not the Abortion Services Act (the “Act”) is a justifiable interference with freedom of expression rights.
A coalition of abortion service providers and pro-choice organizations, including LEAF, intervened to support the legislation.
The Access Coalition included the Every Women’s Health Centre Society, the Elizabeth Bagshaw Women’s Clinic, the BC Women’s CARE Program (of the BC Women’s Hospital and Health Centre), West Coast LEAF and the Pro-Choice Action Network.
The case was argued in September 2007 and in September 2008 the British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal R. v Watson and Spratt.
The factum for the intervention is available here.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal decision in Watson/Spratt is here.
A plain-language case summary is here.
On June 18, 2009, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Spratt’s application for leave to appeal.
