Why your participation in e-Court is important?
Technology embraced and legal justice obtained with prior knowledge of expense and duration
Why your participation in e-Court is important?
Technology embraced and legal justice obtained with prior knowledge of expense and duration
Posted by Linda McKay-Panos on March 01, 2013
Justice Cromwell wrote the decision for the Supreme Court of Canada. He noted that since the advent of the Charter, a number of legal decisions had provided guidance on standing, resulting in the development of a three-factor test in public law cases. These factors are:
These factors are to be assessed in a “large and liberal” fashion. - See more at: http://www.lawnow.org/standing-up-for-your-rights/#sthash.3umKKHqk.dpuf
The DESW case raised the issue of whether these three factors are to be treated as a rigid checklist, or rather as considerations to be taken into account when exercising judicial discretion with respect to granting standing. In Canada (Minister of Justice) v Borowski, [1981] 2 SCR 575 (a pre-Charter case), the court had phrased the third factor a little more stridently: “there is no other reasonable manner in which the issue may be brought to court” [emphasis added].
The SCC discussed the three factors.
The SCC noted that justiciability (the question is such that the court possesses the ability to provide a legal resolution to the dispute) is related to the constitutional relationship of the court to the other branches of government and also the concern about the allocation of “scarce judicial resources”. Courts that are exercising their discretion to grant standing must stay within the bounds of their proper constitutional role should analyze whether the statement of claim reveals at least one serious constitutional issue.
Whether the party bringing the action has a real stake or a genuine interest in its outcome.
In DESW, the SCC held that this factor is concerned with whether “the plaintiff has a real stake in the proceedings or is engaged with the issues they raise”.
Whether, having regard to a number of factors, the proposed suit is a reasonable and effective means to bring the case to court.
In DESW, the SCC noted that although this factor has often been expressed as a strict requirement (e.g., “no other reasonable and effective manner in which the matter may be brought before the court”), it has not always been expressed that strictly. It listed a number of considerations that assist with interpreting the third factor in a manner that “reflects the flexible, discretionary and purposive approach to public interest standing that underpins all of the Court’s decisions in this area”.
The SCC noted that the third factor should be applied in “light of the need to ensure full and complete adversarial presentation and to conserve judicial resources.” The court should have the benefit of hearing the contending views of the people who are most directly affected by the issues; whether the proposed action is an economical use of judicial resources; whether the issues are presented in a context suitable for judicial determination in an adversarial setting; and whether permitting the proposed action to go forward will serve the purpose of upholding the principle of legality”.
The SCC also provided an illustrative list of some examples of matters that courts could find useful when assessing the third discretionary factor. These include:
Thus, the SCC concluded that the third factor should be expressed as: “whether the proposed suit is, in all the circumstances, a reasonable and effective means of bringing the matter before the court” rather than the stricter requirement set out in Borowski.
In the circumstances of the DESW case, the SCC noted that there was generally no dispute that the action raised serious and justiciable issues.
As for the second factor, the SCC held that both the DESW and the individual applicant have a genuine interest in the outcome of the current claim and are “no busybod[ies].”
The chambers judge in the original application raised a number of concerns that weighed against granting public interest standing. The SCC dealt with each of these concerns.
The SCC concluded that none of the three concerns raised by the chambers judge were entitled to the weight that he gave them in arriving at his decision to deny standing.
The SCC also assessed the other considerations that should be taken into account with respect to the “reasonable and effective means” factor. The parties raise issues of public importance that transcend their immediate interests. The challenge is comprehensive as it related to nearly the entire legislative scheme and may prevent a multiplicity of individual challenges. The claim is being advanced with thoroughness and skill. The presence of an individual respondent ensures that there is both an individual and a collective dimension to the case. Thus, the present litigation constitutes “an effective means of bringing this issue to court” so that it may be presented in a suitable adversarial context.
The SCC concluded that all three factors favoured the Court exercising its discretion to grant public interest standing to the DESW.
The relaxation of the third factor is a welcome change to those public interest groups who, in the past, have encountered difficulties in obtaining standing.
e-Court was incorporated during 2010 under the China Corporations Act. The company is an independent group of experienced professionals like (former) lawyers, barristers, solicitors or attorneys, judges, university professors, industry and other legal interest groups. e-Court aims to provide competent, affordable, secure, transparent and speedy justice for everyone..
e-Court China is a division of e-Court Legal Services International, the world's largest online arbitration network: United Kingdom, Netherlands, Denmark, France, Spain, Switzerland, Italy, Sweden, Germany, Belgium, Russia, Canada, United States, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, India, China, Singapore, Japan, Hong Kong, Indonesia, South Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan
Address:Beijing, China
Telephone: +1-613-761-8625
Email: info@e-court.cn