Amnesty International Canada's Legal Work Database

Bill 60 was introduced in Quebec’s National Assembly in 2013. The Bill proposed, among other measures, to prohibit employees of the government of Quebec from wearing conspicuous religious symbols. Amnesty International wrote a brief to the National Assembly expressing concern that the proposed Quebec Charter of Values would violate the rights to freedom of religion, expression, assembly, and the right to work. Amnesty International observed that even if Bill 60 contains neutral language, it would have disproportionate effects on women as well as religious and ethnic minorities that wear conspicuous religious symbols such as scarves or veils, depriving them of having access to public participation and important public services.

This case was brought by a number of individuals who have experienced homelessness and inadequate housing in Ontario and Canada. They argued that the provincial and federal governments’ failure to devise and implement a strategy to reduce homelessness and inadequate housing violated their rights to life, to security of the person, and to equality under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Tsilhqot’in First Nation is a semi-nomadic grouping of six bands who have lived in a remote valley in central British Columbia for centuries.  They went to court more than 20 years ago to protect their traditional land, which British Columbia had targeted for intensive logging. The case made it up to the Supreme Court of Canada, which was tasked with determining whether the Tsilhqot’in peoples had established (1) their right to use their traditional territory for traditional activities; and (2) title over the disputed territory. Amnesty International co-intervened in this case with the Canadian Friends Service Committee. In our intervention, we argued that the Canadian framework for Aboriginal title under section 35 of the Canadian constitution – which protects Aboriginal people’s rights – should be interpreted and applied consistently with international human rights law. Accordingly, Amnesty International and the Canadian Friends Service Committee argued that the Supreme Court of Canada should adopt an approach to section 35 that advances the goal of genuine reconciliation.

This case concerned two Canadians who suffered terrible injuries – leading to death in one case – while vacationing in Cuba. Mr. Van Breda and Mr. Charron’s family brought a civil action in Ontario against Club Resorts Ltd, the company that managed the two hotels the men were staying in when the accidents occurred. The courts needed to determine whether the plaintiffs had a “real and substantial connection” to Ontario sufficient to establish jurisdiction in Ontario over the cases. The Court of Appeal for Ontario noted the emergence of the doctrine of “forum of necessity” in Canadian and European law recognizing that overriding considerations of fairness and the need to ensure access to justice may justify the assumption of jurisdiction in the absence of a real and substantial connection. Amnesty International co-intervened before the Supreme Court of Canada in the Van Breda case with the Canadian Centre for International Justice and Canadian Lawyers for International Human Rights. We argued that the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s recognition of the forum of necessity doctrine is a positive development that harmonizes Ontario law with well-recognized national and international standards of jurisdiction and access to justice.