A Canadian civil liberties group says there are several legal challenges Canadians concerned about their constitutional rights should pay attention to in 2025.
Josh Dehaas, a civil liberties lawyer with the Canadian Constitution Foundation, told True North in an interview that the impact of five major civil liberties cases in 2025 could affect constitutional freedoms in Canada.
The list includes an appeal to a federal court decision that the government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act was unconstitutional, to Canadians being barred from going to their mother’s funerals interprovincially during the pandemic.
Feds appealing Federal Court finding that the government’s use of the Emergencies Act was unconstitutional
The government is set to have its appeal hearing at the Federal Court of Appeal between Feb. 3 and Feb. 5 next year to reverse the Federal Court’s findings that the invocation of the Emergencies Act was unconstitutional.
Dehaas said many people might look at the Freedom Convoy and think they have nothing in common with those protesters. He argued that if Canadians don’t protect the rights of even those they disagree with, they won’t have any rights left when needed.
“You never know when you’re going to need your rights.” Josh Dehaas said. “One day, there might be something that you want to go out there and express your speech and assembly rights in favour of. Everybody should care about this because it will affect you one day, too.”
The court found that there were no national emergencies, the claims that terrorism initially used in the invocation were bunk and that economic harm did not constitute a reasonable use of the Act.
The CCF will be cross-appealing the government’s appeal as the civil liberties group thinks the federal court judge incorrectly said the Canadian’s right to freedom of assembly was not violated by new powers granted to law enforcement by the Act.
Dehaas said it would be an interesting case for Canadians to watch because a Conservative government under Pierre Poilievre vowed to scrap the appeal. However, it’s unclear when an election will be called.
Saskatchewan police “snooping” on property without a warrant
Wayne Lester Singer, a Saskatchewan resident, is challenging charges laid against him after police entered his driveway without a warrant, looked in the window of his truck and charged him with impaired driving.
Dehaas said police allegedly found Singer “slumped over” in the vehicle, knocked on the window and gave him a breathalyzer test before laying charges.
Although the CCF doesn’t condone impaired driving, Dehaas said the case has serious implications for Saskatchewan resident’s rights to privacy.
“Police claimed that they have ‘implied license’ that allows people to walk onto your property and knock on your door, which can be used to snoop on people without a warrant,” Dehaas said. “We think that’s wrong, and the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal agrees with our position on that, but the government is fighting that and saying police should be allowed to do that, which we think is a breach of your Section 8 rights.”
Professor challenges government’s NSICOP secrecy law
Ryan Alford, a law professor, believes a Liberal government law introduced in 2017 prevents parliamentarians from informing the public of what gets sent to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians violates the constitution.
The law prescribes 14 years in prison for any members of NSICOP if they reveal the contents of an NSICOP report. Dehaas said the law gives Trudeau executive control over the committee, and he can potentially send anything he doesn’t want the public to know about to the committee to prevent parliamentary debate.
“Parliamentarians like the opposition need to be able to talk about national security matters openly and debate that openly so that the public knows what’s going on,” Dehaas said. “It shouldn’t be covered up essentially by the executive right by Trudeau’s office.
The Superior Court agreed with Alford, saying the law violates parliamentarians’ privilege to free speech, and Trudeau’s government is challenging his arguments in the Supreme Court of Canada.
Asylum Seeker suing after being denied tax-funded social services
An asylum seeker is suing the Quebec government for discrimination after being refused taxpayer-funded daycare for her children.
Bijou Cibuabua Kanyinda, from the Democratic Republic of Congo made an asylum claim after entering Canada from the US border at Roxham Road in 2018. After Kanyinda entered the country with her three children, she attempted to access subsidized daycare services in Quebec but was denied.
She was denied access to social services as only those granted refugee status were entitled to the funds.
“It’s a policy decision. The budget is not unlimited, and charter equality should not extend unlimited benefits to non-citizens,” Dehaas argued.
Nova Scotian prevented from attending mother’s funeral during lockdowns
Kimberly Taylor, a Nova Scotia resident, was prohibited from entering Newfoundland to attend her mother’s funeral and to be there for her grieving and alone father. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association is arguing that her right to freedom of movement in Canada was violated.
The CCF will intervene in the case, arguing that Taylor had a right to “freedom of movement” as granted by the charter. The government of Newfoundland argues that constitutional rights do not include the right to move freely between provinces in this way.