Trial Lawyers of British Columbia v British Columbia: Section 96 Comes to the Access to Civil Justice Debate
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21991/C9T96SAbstract
You can bemoan or you can celebrate, but you cannot deny that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms fundamentally changed Canadian criminal procedure. In contrast, until recently, civil proceduralists could confidently ignore constitutional law. All attempts to constitutionalize principles of civil justice had been rebuffed by the courts. That appears to be how the framers of the Charter wanted it. The Legal Rights set out in sections 7 through 14 of the Charter speak of deprivation of “life, liberty and security of the person”, “arrest” and “detention”, being charged with an “offence” or of “punishment and treatment”. Those caught up in the criminal justice system are precisely the kind of unpopular minority the framers thought needed protection from populist majoritarianism. On the other hand, the Charter demonstrates no desire to interfere with the long tradition of provincial autonomy and experimentation with civil justice. As a result, the Court early on decided that even where the Legal Rights are unclear, they do not apply to civil litigation.
But the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Trial Lawyers Association means that those interested in civil procedure, and its possible reform, can no longer ignore the Constitution without risk. The Court held that a right of access to superior courts is protected by section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867, as informed by the unwritten principle of the rule of law. British Columbia’s hearing-fee scheme — in place since before Confederation — was held to be unconstitutional because its exemption for the “impoverished” was found not to be wide enough to protect that right for middle-class would-be litigants. This comment will argue that the impact could be significant, since all issues in civil and family procedure can be reconceived in terms of access to courts. Unfortunately, the constitutionalization of civil procedure is unlikely to improve the systemic problems that deny middle class Canadians the realistic option of a day in court.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with Constitutional Forum constitutionnel grant the journal the right of first publication, and agree to license the work under an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND) that allows others to share the work for non-commercial purposes, with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal, as long as no changes are made to the original work. Please use this format to attribute this work to Constitutional Forum constitutionnel:
"First published as: Title of Article, Contributor, Constitutional Forum constitutionnel Volume/Issue, Copyright © [year], Publisher"