Case summary This case is about the ongoing struggle to have women’s reproductive work fully recognized, and to ensure that all benefit schemes for parents and pregnant women are consistent with the requirements of substantive equality. The central legal issue in this case is whether a government employer who provides benefits to women who give … Read more BC Public School Employers’ Association v BC Teachers Federation [2014]
Case summary This case began as Vilardell v Dunham, a family law case that addressed the constitutionality of daily hearing fees. In family law, the party who files the proceedings is charged a fee for every day of hearing after the first three days. In this case, the mother applied to have her fees waived. In the … Read more Trial Lawyers Association of BC v BC [2014]
Case summary Inglis concerns the constitutionality of the 2008 closure of the mother-baby program at Alouette Correctional Centre for Women. The program accommodated women who gave birth during their prison terms. Infants were allowed to stay with their mothers in the months after their births, giving them time to bond, breastfeed and develop familial attachments. The … Read more Inglis v Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General of BC [2013]
Case summary Friedmann involves a female tenant who was sexually harassed by her male landlord. After ending her tenancy, she filed a human rights complaint with the BC Human Rights Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the harassment she endured amounted to discrimination on the basis of sex, and was a violation of the BC Human Rights Code. … Read more Friedmann v MacGarvie [2012]
Case summary Moore v Ministry of Education specifically concerns discrimination against severely learning-disabled (SLD) students, but the Supreme Court of Canada decision on the case will have important implications for many others experiencing discrimination. Jeffrey Moore, a student with severe dyslexia, required significant special education to meet his educational needs. When the school district cancelled its … Read more Moore v Ministry of Education
Case summary This reference required 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 had a demonstrable historical and current interest in the practice of polygamy, in particular, in Bountiful, BC, and in the … Read more Polygamy Reference [2010]
Case summary In November 2010, West Coast LEAF submitted its formal application to be a part of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry, set up to investigate the disappearance and murder of dozens of women from Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside and along the Highway of Tears in Northern BC. West Coast LEAF committed to working in coalition with … Read more Missing Women Commission of Inquiry [2010]
Case summary In April 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada decided to grant the federal Attorney-General’s application for leave to appeal the ruling of the BC Court of Appeal in SWUAV v Canada. West Coast LEAF sought leave to intervene in the case in coalition with ARCH Disability Law Centre and Justice for Children and Youth. The case involves an … Read more SWUAV v Canada [2010]
Case summary 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. West … Read more Rick v Brandsema [2009]
Case summary 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 … Read more Watson v R; Spratt v R [2008]
