Thanks, Kasari.
West Coast LEAF is pleased that this committee is discussing the reintroduction of the court challenges program of Canada as part of your study on access to the justice system. Alongside robust civil and criminal legal aid programs, funding for larger scale court challenges is necessary to support the enforcement and advancement of equality rights on a systemic level.
You've already heard from other presenters in past sessions, and earlier in this session, about the value of the court challenges program and its history, so I'm going to focus on West Coast LEAF's recommendations for what the renewed court challenges program should look like. I'll note that these are elaborated in our written submissions, which should be made available to committee members once they've been translated into both official languages.
First, reinstate the program's mandate to support historically disadvantaged individuals and groups seeking equality in Canada.
Second, expand the program to include provincial and territorial laws, so that it responds to and addresses those laws that most directly and most often impact the majority of individuals, such as family law and access to social services legislation.
Third, provide adequate, sustainable funding for the program, funding that is calibrated to the true cost of mounting systemic test case litigation, including funding for interventions in cases that are already before the court.
Fourth, the program should have a clear mandate and independent oversight.
Finally, funding for this program should not compromise existing funding, particularly funding that already exists for indigenous rights cases, for example.
I think an illustration from West Coast LEAF's past work will highlight how important the court challenges program is to enhancing women's equality. In 2010 West Coast LEAF played a crucial role in the polygamy reference case, in which the B.C. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of criminal prohibitions against polygamy. We intervened in the reference to successfully argue that the criminal prohibition of polygamy was constitutional and does enhance women's substantive equality rights. Our involvement in this case was a direct result of the former court challenges program.
In 2004, we received funding from the program to convene a national consultation on women and religious freedom, the outcome of which was the position that we then advanced at the polygamy reference case.
In this case our position was very different from that of other groups with whom we sometimes align ourselves, or with whom we often share perspectives. As you know, that is the nature of many constitutional cases, particularly when it comes to equality rights. The issues are complex and divisive, and courts can't make properly considered decisions without the benefit of views based on thoughtful evidence-based analysis and research, which in turn cannot be done without adequate funding for bringing together legal and social science experts with other witnesses to discuss what equality is and how it should look in particular cases.
As you've heard before, the program was a critical part of the development of equality rights law in Canada in the past, but there is much more work to be done to protect, promote, and enhance those rights going forward.
On that note, as Kasari mentioned, we have secured some funding for a women's legal clinic. My job as director of litigation is going to be to look at the individual cases that come through that clinic, identify systemic issues that may be ripe for challenging in the court, and then analyze whether litigation would be a useful means by which to seek that change. The renewed court challenges program would be indispensable in making that happen.
As my colleague pointed out, our recommendation for equality rights is to focus on sections 15, 28 and subsection 35(4) of the Constitution.
We look forward to your questions.