DOCSLIB.ORG

Epistemological Justice in Strategic Challenges to Legislation Under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Epistemological Justice in Strategic Challenges to Legislation Under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Epistemological Justice in Strategic Challenges To Legislation under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms Dana Phillips A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY GRADUATE PROGRAM IN LAW YORK UNIVERSITY TORONTO, ONTARIO JANUARY 2021 © Dana Phillips, 2021 Abstract This dissertation responds to two recent developments in the landscape of Canadian constitutional litigation. First, the advent of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has invited a wave of strategic constitutional challenges directed at systemic social reform, including many cases aligned with progressive social justice goals. Second, the focus of Charter litigation has shifted from legal interpretation and argument to the consideration of extensive evidence pertaining to social and legislative facts. The recent successes of a number of strategic Charter challenges to legislation brought on behalf of marginalized communities and involving voluminous evidentiary records suggests that the above developments hold considerable promise for progressive social movements. And yet, critical scholars and activists have persistently questioned the potential of constitutional litigation, and law generally, to effect progressive social change, pointing to a tension between the pursuit of positive legal outcomes and the broader transformation of social power relations. Using a case study of Bedford v Canada (AG), along with interviews of constitutional litigators and judges, this project explores an under-theorized facet of the above-noted tension by asking about the epistemological implications of the wide-ranging fact-finding processes that have come to characterize progressive constitutional challenges to legislation, especially under section 7 of the Charter. This inquiry is premised on the contention that the realization of social justice depends, at least in part, on the realization of what I call “epistemological justice”, defined as the just treatment of knowledge in legal processes. Drawing on the work of feminist epistemologists and other critical thinkers, the account of epistemological justice that I develop in this project centers on a commitment to fully hearing and giving due weight to the experiential knowledge of marginalized people who are directly affected by a given law or policy in decision- making processes. My analysis then asks whether the progressive promise of strategic Charter litigation is borne out at the level of epistemological justice in this sense. Ultimately, my findings suggest that there is reason to doubt this proposition, and thus further reason to doubt the value of strategic Charter litigation as a tool for social justice. ii Dedication for Carmen iii Acknowledgments Thanks first and foremost to my supervisor, Benjamin Berger, for the extraordinary knowledge, skill, and care that you brought to this work. You have guided me adeptly every step of the way. I simply could not have asked for a more dedicated mentor. To Janet Mosher, for your constant, gentle support, especially in thinking through the methodological and ethical aspects of this project. And to Dayna Scott, for your insight, pragmatism, and distinct perspective on public interest litigation. To Patricia Cochran and Amanda Glasbeek for engaging so thoughtfully with this work at, and leading up to, the oral examination. To Sonia Lawrence, for your leadership as Graduate Program Director, and your formidable feminist intellect. To the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the province of Ontario, and York University, for financial support. To the Spadina grad student crew, and the many others who have been on this PhD journey with me. For friendship, a space to vent, and the occasional living room dance party. To my parents, for your unfailing love and support, even in my ugliest moments. And for the home and refuge that got me through the last crazy year. To Ilya, for letting this work take up so much space in our life, and for quietly tending to all the things that I left by the wayside. I am so proud of this partnership. Love, love, love. To Carmen, for the drive to finish, and for the joy. iv Table of Contents Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... ii Dedication ................................................................................................................................ iii Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................. iv Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................... v Preface: Constructing Knowledge About Knowledge ................................................. ix Chapter 1: Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 THE CONTEXT .................................................................................................................... 6 1.2.1 Critiques of Constitutional Litigation as a Tool for Social Justice .......................... 6 The Courts’ Limited Receptivity to Progressive Social Causes ................................................. 11 The Failure of Legal Victories to Produce Meaningful Social Change .................................... 15 The Detrimental Effects of Litigation on Client Communities and Social Movements ... 18 1.2.2 The Shift from Law to Fact ................................................................................................ 23 1.3 MY APPROACH ................................................................................................................ 30 1.3.1 Case Study: Bedford ............................................................................................................. 31 1.3.2 Interviews .............................................................................................................................. 38 1.3.3 A Note on Terminology ...................................................................................................... 40 1.4 OUTLINE OF CHAPTERS ............................................................................................... 42 Chapter 2: The Evidentiary Framework of Strategic Charter Challenges to Legislation ............................................................................................................................... 48 2.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 48 2.2. THE NEW EVIDENCE SCHOLARSHIP ....................................................................... 51 2.2.1 From “Information in Litigation” to “Knowledge in Litigation” ........................... 51 2.2.2 Twining’s Argument of Exaggerated Importance ..................................................... 53 2.3 THE NATURE OF THE FACTS IN STRATEGIC CHARTER LITIGATION ............ 57 2.4 CONSEQUENCES FOR THE FACT-FINDING PROCESS ........................................... 63 2.4.1 The Impotence of the Rules of Admissibility .............................................................. 64 Three Evidentiary Doctrines in Bedford ............................................................................................ 67 Interviewee Perspectives on Admissibility Issues in Strategic Charter Litigation .......... 78 2.4.2 Uncertainties Regarding the Process of Proof ........................................................... 84 2.5 A DIFFERENT APPROACH TO EVIDENCE ................................................................ 93 2.5.1 The Framing of Facts .......................................................................................................... 93 Legal versus Factual Knowledge ............................................................................................................ 94 The Demands of Proof ................................................................................................................................ 98 v 2.5.2 The Framing of Evidence ................................................................................................. 100 2.6 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 101 Chapter 3: Epistemological Frameworks in Strategic Charter Litigation ........ 102 3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 102 3.2 FEMINIST EPISTEMOLOGY ........................................................................................ 104 3.2.1 Objectivity ............................................................................................................................ 109 A) Feminist Empiricism .......................................................................................................................... 111 B) Feminist Standpoint Theories ........................................................................................................ 112 C) Feminist Postmodernism ................................................................................................................. 112 D) Positionality and Situated Knowledge
Load more

Recommended publications
  • LCJC-Issue15 1..312
    Second Session Deuxième session de la Forty-first Parliament, 2014-15 quarante et unième législature, 2014-2015 Proceedings of the Standing Délibérations du Comité Senate Committee on sénatorial permanent des Legal and Affaires juridiques Constitutional Affairs et constitutionnelles Chair: Président : The Honourable BOB RUNCIMAN L'honorable BOB RUNCIMAN Tuesday September 9, 2014 Le mardi 9 septembre 2014 Wednesday, September 10, 2014 Le mercredi 10 septembre 2014 Thursday, September 11, 2014 Le jeudi 11 septembre 2014 Issue No.15 Fascicule no 15 First, second and third meetings on: Première, deuxième et troisième réunions concernant : The subject-matter of Bill C-36, An Act to amend La teneur du projet de loi C-36, Loi modifiant the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court le Code criminel pour donner suite à la décision de of Canada decision in Attorney General la Cour suprême du Canada dans l'affaire Procureur of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential général du Canada c. Bedford et apportant des amendments to other Acts modifications à d'autres lois en conséquence APPEARING: COMPARAÎT: The Honourable Peter MacKay, P.C., M.P., L'honorable Peter MacKay, C.P., député, ministre de la Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Justice et procureur général du Canada WITNESSES: TÉMOINS : (See back cover) (Voir à l'endos) 51557-51558-51559 STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMITÉ SÉNATORIAL PERMANENT DES LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS AFFAIRES JURIDIQUES ET CONSTITUTIONNELLES The Honourable Bob Runciman, Chair Président : L'honorable Bob Runciman The Honourable George Baker, P.C., Deputy Chair Vice-président : L'honorable George Baker, C.P.
    [Show full text]
  • The Interdependency of Human Rights As a Solution to the Prostitution Debate
    THE INTERDEPENDENCY OF HUMAN RIGHTS AS A SOLUTION TO THE PROSTITUTION DEBATE Anne Dagenais Guertin Major research paper submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies under the requirements of the LL.M. program Faculty of Law University of Ottawa People choose, but not under circumstances of their own choosing. Inspired by Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte i TABLE OF CONTENT LIST OF ACRONYMS..................................................................................................................iii SUMMARY/RÉSUMÉ..................................................................................................................iv THANKS.........................................................................................................................................v PRELIMINARY INFORMATION...............................................................................................vi INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1 CHAPTER 1: The Abolitionist and Pro Sex Work Impasse...........................................................4 1.1 A Brief Presentation and Critique of the Abolitionist/Pro Sex Work Debate.....................5 1.2 The History and Influence of Abolitionist and Pro Sex Work Groups on Prostitution and Trafficking at the International Level..................................................................................9 1.2.1 The Beginning: the Movement for the Abolition of White Slavery...........................10
    [Show full text]
  • Selling What No One Can Buy
    Selling What No One Can Buy by Carolyn Rebecca Mouland A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Laws Faculty of Law University of Toronto © Copyright by Carolyn Rebecca Mouland (2018) i Selling What No One Can Buy Carolyn Rebecca Mouland Master of Laws Faculty of Law University of Toronto 2018 Abstract Through legal process theory, this thesis examines Parliament’s deliberations leading up to the enactment of Bill C-36, which was introduced to govern the exchange of sexual services for consideration after the Supreme Court of Canada’s landmark decision in Bedford v Canada. Grounded in legislative principles and functions, Part I’s “objective-perceptual” approach to legislative intent conceives of Parliament as an institution comprised of rational, reason-giving agents who must have a reasoned apprehension to legislate. Part II evaluates the evidence, argument, and participation at Committee Hearings to demonstrate that Parliament’s democratic, legal, and institutional legitimacy deteriorated from misapprehending polls, social science, and testimony. After analyzing Bill C-36’s Preamble and legislative objectives at Part III’s outset, the connection between the form and content of law is illustrated by arguing that s 213(1.1) of the Criminal Code has an invalid purpose, which in turn shows the inextricable link between rationality and legitimacy. ii Acknowledgements To my supervisor, Professor Hamish Stewart, I am grateful for your guidance, patience, and time. Thank you for seeing potential in my ideas and for asking provocative questions to shape and strengthen my arguments into intriguing directions. Your creative and cogent scholarship is a spring of knowledge and source of inspiration for me.
    [Show full text]
  • 07-Cv-329807Pd1 Ontario Superior Court of Justice
    07-CV-329807PD1 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: TERRI JEAN BEDFORD, AMY LEBOVITCH, VALERIE SCOTT Applicants and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO Intervener FACTUM OF THE INTERVENER, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO Ministry Of The Attorney General Crown Law Office - Criminal 720 Bay Street, 10th Floor Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K1 Christine Bartlett-Hughes Shelley Maria Hallett Tel: (416) 326-2351 / (416) 326-4639 Fax: (416) 326-4656 Email: [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener, Attorney General of Ontario TO: Registrar Superior Court of Justice for Ontario 393 University Avenue 10th Floor Toronto, ON M5G 1E6 AND TO: Alan Young Osgoode Hall Law School York University 4700 Keele Street North York, ON M3J 1P3 Counsel for the Applicant AND TO: Stacey Nichols Neuberger Rose LLP 1392 Eglinton Avenue West Toronto, ON M6C 3E4 Tel: (416) 364-3111 Fax: (416) 364-3271 Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Applicant, Valerie Scott AND TO: Ron Marzel Barrister & Solicitor 1170 Sheppard Ave West, Unit 10 Toronto, ON M3K 2A3 Tel: (416) 485-5800 Fax: (416) 485-1610 Counsel for the Applicant, Amy Lebovitch AND TO: Department of Justice Ontario Regional Office The Exchange Tower 130 King Street West, Suite 3400 Toronto, ON M5X 1K6 Per: Michael H. Morris Gail Sinclair Julie Jai Roy Lee Tel: (416) 973-9704 / (416) 954-8109 / (416) 973-2310 / (416) 952-2946 Fax: (416) 952-4518 Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for the Respondent AND TO: Bennett Jones LLP 3400 One First Canadian Place P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Bedford V. Canada and the Human Rights of Sex Workers
    SEX WORK, LAW, AND VIOLENCE: BEDFORD V. CANADA AND THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF SEX WORKERS Graham Hudson* Emily van der Meulen** In Bedford v. Canada, two levels of Ontario courts ruled that a selection of criminal laws prohibiting prostitution-related activities unjustifiably deprive sex workers of their right to liberty and security of the person.*** The courts struck down or modified some of the offending provisions to ensure that sex workers are better able to take precautions against violence. While sex workers consider the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling a victory and the Ontario Court of Appeal ruling a partial victory, the government, some women’s rights groups, and other defenders of the provisions argue that courts ventured into a “policy thicket”, which is to suggest that they had stepped outside of their legitimate institutional role. Associated concerns include that the decisions effectively constitutionalize prostitution and will pre-empt or curtail Parliament’s consideration of legislative options. In this paper, the authors clarify misconceptions about the constitutional foundations and implications of Bedford, and explore how the ruling might affect legal and policy- based interactions among various stakeholders. Approaching constitutional rights as discursive mechanisms, rather than as “trumps”, we argue that Bedford will not hinder the continuation of democratic debate about whether, how, and why aspects of sex work should be regulated. To the contrary, Bedford is more likely to enhance the quality of debates by making them more inclusive of the perspectives of sex workers as well as accommodative of growing empirical research that has hitherto been ignored or misrecognized.
    [Show full text]
  • SFU Thesis Template Files
    ‘Victim’, ‘Deviant’, or ‘Worker’ but Nothing in Between: Revisiting Prostitution Discourse in Bedford v. Canada by Anita Chiang B.A. (Hons.), Mount Royal University, 2013 Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in the School of Criminology Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences Anita Chiang 2015 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Fall 2015 Approval Name: Anita Chiang Degree: Master of Arts (Criminology) Title: ‘Victim’, ‘Deviant’, or ‘Worker’ but Nothing in Between: Revisiting Prostitution Discourse in Bedford v. Canada Examining Committee: Chair: Dr. Martin Andresen Professor Dr. David MacAlister Senior Supervisor Associate Professor Dr. Ted Palys Supervisor Professor Dr. Hayli Millar External Examiner Assistant Professor Department of Criminology University of the Fraser Valley Date Defended/Approved: November 10, 2015 ii Abstract Controversy around the concept of prostitution and appropriate social policy responses to it has long existed. Perspectives on prostitution constantly conflate with notions of human trafficking, exploitation, and victimization, thereby influencing our understanding of choice, consent, and violence. From 1990 until very recently, Canadian courts failed to address the criminalization of prostitution related activities despite the actual acts of prostitution remaining legal. This study attempts to address current understandings of prostitution through a discourse analysis of the evidence tendered before the three levels of court in the 2013 Ontario Bedford challenge to the constitutionality of prostitution related offences in Canada. Three dominant discourses were identified, namely a victim discourse, a deviant discourse, and a worker discourse, with each providing opposing views of how prostitution should be viewed and what the most appropriate policy response to it entails.
    [Show full text]
  • Law, Religious Intervention, and Social Science in the Case of Bedford Vs
    Lakehead University Knowledge Commons,http://knowledgecommons.lakeheadu.ca Electronic Theses and Dissertations Electronic Theses and Dissertations from 2009 2014-01-22 An ostensible exercise in modernity: law, religious intervention, and social science in the case of Bedford vs. Canada Lucky, Vanessa http://knowledgecommons.lakeheadu.ca/handle/2453/493 Downloaded from Lakehead University, KnowledgeCommons An Ostensible Exercise in Modernity: Law, Religious Intervention and Social Science in the Case of Bedford v. Canada By Vanessa Lucky Departments of Sociology and Women’s Studies Lakehead University Thunder Bay, Ontario January 2013 ii Table of Contents Acknowledgements iv Abstract vi Introduction 1 Background to the Current Case Study 2 Theoretical Framework 4 Literature Review 15 Organization of Thesis 25 Chapter 2: Research Design and Methodology 28 Chapter 3: The Role of Collective Values in Law 40 Conceptualizing Law 41 The Canadian Context and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms 54 The Role of Collective Values in Bedford v. Canada 60 Conclusion 67 Chapter 4: The Role of Religious Intervention 69 Conventional Morality and the Canadian Legal Tradition 69 Religious Intervention in Bedford v. Canada 73 iii The Role of Legal Moralism 78 Conclusion 88 Chapter 5: The Role of Expert Witnesses 91 Expert versus Lay Knowledge 94 The Role of Expert Witnesses 99 Conclusion 109 Chapter 6: Constructing the Canadian Sex Trade 111 The Applicants’ Account 113 The AG Canada’s Account 122 The AG Ontario’s Account 127 The CLF and Colleagues’ Account 132 Justice Himel’s Account 134 Conclusion 140 Conclusion 142 References 148 iv Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to express profound thanks to my supervisor, Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Which Regulatory Approach to Prostitution Should Canada Adopt in Order to Fully Protect Sex-Workers' Rights?
    The Rights Approach: Which Regulatory Approach to Prostitution Should Canada Adopt in Order to Fully Protect Sex-Workers' Rights? MASTER THESIS INTERNATIONAL AND EUROPEAN LAW AUTHOR | TANYA KELM SUPERVISOR | CHIARA RAUCEA ACADEMIC YEAR | 2016 - 2017 ABSTRACT Prostitution is present in every part of the world and is one of the oldest professions.1 Data on the issue shows, that it is predominately women who are involved in prostitution and men who are buyers of these sexual services.2 In this context, debate has shifted from whether or not prostitution should be abolished to how it should be regulated. While the issue of prostitution has been discussed and addressed in many ways, as being violence against women3, subordination of women4, liberation and empowerment of women5 Often regulation of prostitution has been developed in the fight against trafficking, for the purpose of sexual exploitation, as the assumption of either legalizing or abolishment of prostitution should decrease trafficking of women. Moreover, different approaches on prostitution will evidently have different effects on the women involved in prostitution. Thus this research carries out a comparative analysis of two countries – Canada and the Netherlands focusing on cases with different legislations on prostitution. Through this comparison I will answer my research question of “which regulatory approach to prostitution should Canada adopt in order to fully protect sex- workers' rights”. Canada and the Netherlands differ greatly on their regulatory regimes relative to prostitution and both countries have pros and cons. We will extrapolate what regulatory approaches each country pursues and conclude with final findings on the future of Canadas regulation of prostituion.
    [Show full text]
  • Revisiting Prostitution Discourse Within Bedford V. Canada
    ‘Victim’, ‘Deviant’, or ‘Worker’ but Nothing in Between: Revisiting Prostitution Discourse within Bedford v. Canada by Anita Chiang B.A. (Hons.), Mount Royal University, 2013 Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in the School of Criminology Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences © Anita Chiang 2015 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Fall 2015 Approval Name: Anita Chiang Degree: Master of Arts (Criminology) Title: ‘Victim’, ‘Deviant’, or ‘Worker’ but Nothing in Between: Revisiting Prostitution Discourse within the Bedford v. Canada Examining Committee: Chair: Dr. Martin Andresen Professor and Associate Director of Graduate Programs David MacAlister, LLM Senior Supervisor Associate Professor Dr. Ted Palys Supervisor Professor Dr. Hayli Millar External Examiner Assistant Professor School of Criminology and Criminal Justice University of Fraser Valley Date Defended/Approved: November 10, 2015 ii Abstract Controversy around the concept of prostitution and appropriate social policy responses to it has long existed. Perspectives on prostitution constantly conflate with notions of human trafficking, exploitation, and victimization, thereby influencing our understanding of choice, consent, and violence. From 1990 until very recently, Canadian courts failed to address the criminalization of prostitution related activities despite the actual acts of prostitution remaining legal. This study attempts to address current understandings of prostitution through a discourse analysis of the evidence tendered before the three levels of court in the 2013 Ontario Bedford challenge to the constitutionality of prostitution related offences in Canada. Three dominant discourses were identified, namely a victim discourse, a deviant discourse, and a worker discourse, with each providing opposing views of how prostitution should be viewed and what the most appropriate policy response to it entails.
    [Show full text]