For about nine years here on Canada’s West Coast, a constitutional battle has been fought over the future of public health care. The opening shots were fired in 2008 by some individual patients against a private surgery clinic, Cambie Surgeries Corporation (“Cambie”), claiming that Cambie was illegally extra-billing and that the Medical Services Commission (the “MSC”) was not properly enforcing the law. Cambie then responded by launching its own action in early 2009, challenging the constitutionality of provisions of the provincial Medicare Protection Act claiming that they caused undue delay in access to health care resulting in a violation of the patients’ rights to life, liberty and security of the person as guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter (amongst other challenges). Since 2009, there have been over thirty reported decisions of the Supreme Court of British Columbia dealing with procedural issues. Over twenty of those reported decisions have been issued since the commencement of trial (I am sure that there are many more unreported decisions).
A recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the Internet giant, Google, has delivered some very important lessons for future litigants in the field of cyber-speech. In Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc., 2017 SCC 34, the Court has delivered two two principal lessons:
1. If you are going to allege constitutional values or arguments, such as the importance of freedom of expression, ensure that you develop a full evidentiary record in support of your position;
2. The Court may well understand that there is a distinction between those who provide technology such as search engines and those who use it for the purposes of breaking the law.
The Supreme Court of Canada has made it clear – if you are going to raise a s. 15 Charter discrimination claim, make sure that you have the evidence to substantiate your claim. Making claims on the basis of intuition, presumed facts or innuendo will not suffice. In Kahkewistahaw First Nation v. Taypotat, 2015 SCC 30, released on Thursday, May 28, 2015, Justice Abella, speaking for the Court, reinstated the judgment of the trial judge, Mr. Justice de Montigny of the Federal Court, Trial Division. She rejected the claim of former Chief Taypotat of the Kahkewistahaw First Nation that the First Nation’s Election Code’s education requirement that candidates for office hold a Grade 12 diploma or equivalent discriminated against him on the basis of his age and residence on the reserve. Her judgment focussed principally on the utter lack of evidence of the alleged discrimination as well as the fact that the grounds had not been expressly pled, at least not in the manner developed by the Federal Court of Appeal on its own initiative.