{"id":5218,"date":"2014-03-31T09:39:05","date_gmt":"2014-03-31T13:39:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.leaf.ca\/?p=5218"},"modified":"2020-10-19T15:54:21","modified_gmt":"2020-10-19T19:54:21","slug":"leaf-advocates-for-full-hearing-of-a-right-to-housing-application","status":"publish","type":"news","link":"https:\/\/www.leaf.ca\/fr\/news\/leaf-advocates-for-full-hearing-of-a-right-to-housing-application\/","title":{"rendered":"LEAF Advocates for Full Hearing of a Right to Housing Application"},"content":{"rendered":"

On March 28, 2014, the Women\u2019s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) presented its arguments for its motion for leave to intervene in the appeal of Tanudjaja <\/em>v. Attorney General (Canada)<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\u201cSocial and economic rights are integral to women\u2019s equality. From LEAF\u2019s perspective, the Tanudjaja case will have potentially significant impacts on the role of the courts and the Charter on the development of social policy and the delivery of social programs<\/em>.\u201d Kim Stanton, LEAF Legal Director<\/p>\n

Why this is important<\/strong><\/p>\n

In May 2010, an application was started in the Ontario Superior Court (the \u201cOSC\u201d) by four homeless individuals and a public interest group called the Centre for Equality Rights on Accommodation. It named the Attorneys General of Ontario and Canada (the \u201cAGs\u201d) as respondents and sought to challenge the \u201cchanges to legislation, policies, programs and services, which have resulted in homelessness and inadequate housing\u201d.<\/p>\n

In their Application, the plaintiffs sought a declaration that the governments of Canada and Ontario have obligations to implement effective national and provincial strategies to reduce and eventually eliminate homelessness and inadequate housing. Further, the plaintiffs sought a declaration that the failure to implement such strategies violates the Applicants\u2019 rights to life, liberty and security of the person contrary to s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter)<\/em>, and their right to equality contrary to s.15 of the Charter<\/em>.<\/p>\n

As remedies, the Applicants sought: a declaration that the Applicants\u2019 s.7 and s.15 rights had been infringed; an order that Canada and Ontario must implement effective strategies to reduce and eliminate homelessness and inadequate housing in consultation with those affected by the policies; and that the court should retain a supervisory function in the implementation of the strategies.<\/p>\n

The application asserted that the governments\u2019 \u201cdecisions, programs, actions and failures to act\u201d created conditions that fostered homelessness and that the governments\u2019 failure to implement effective strategies to address homelessness violated the s.7 and s.15 Charter <\/em>rights of the Applicants and were not saved by s.1.<\/p>\n

In November 2011, the Applicants served their supporting record, which was over 9000 pages in length and included affidavits of the Applicants and expert witnesses.<\/p>\n

In June 2012, two years after the application was filed and over six months after the record was filed, the Attorneys General filed a motion to strike the application because, they argued, it failed to disclose a cause of action because the Charter <\/em>does not impose positive obligations on the state.  The motion to strike was argued in May 2013 and on September 6, 2013, Justice Lederer granted the motion and struck the application. On October 4, 2013, the Applicants filed an appeal of the decision of Justice Lederer in the Ontario Court of Appeal.<\/p>\n

Justice Lederer found that the Charter <\/em>does not impose positive obligations on governments to address the effects of homelessness where the effects contravene Charter<\/em>-protected rights, and that homelessness is not an analogous ground for the purposes of s.15 interpretation.<\/p>\n

LEAF believes that these conclusions are antithetical to our view of substantive equality and the broad role of the Charter<\/em> to remedy government action that perpetuates inequalities. <\/strong><\/p>\n

LEAF\u2019S Plan to Stand Up for Women<\/strong><\/p>\n

Before the Court of Appeal, LEAF\u2019s arguments are focused on the following:<\/p>\n