Kevin Love

A not-for-profit disability rights organization sought public interest standing to challenge the constitutionality of British Columbia's mental health legislation permitting forced psychiatric treatment without patient consent.

After individual co-plaintiffs withdrew, the chambers judge dismissed the claim for lack of standing; the Court of Appeal remitted the matter for fresh consideration.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that legality and access to justice do not merit particular weight in the Downtown Eastside framework and that a directly affected individual co-plaintiff is not required for a public interest litigant to establish a sufficient factual setting.

Applying the three Downtown Eastside factors cumulatively, the Court granted the organization public interest standing and awarded special costs on a full indemnity basis throughout.

The complainant workers suffered from chronic pain and received a fixed compensation award from the Workers' Compensation Board.

They appealed to the Board's Review Division, arguing the policy was discriminatory under the Human Rights Code.

The Review Officer concluded the policy was not discriminatory.

Instead of seeking judicial review, the complainants filed new complaints with the Human Rights Tribunal.

The Tribunal refused to dismiss the complaints under s. 27(1)(f) of the Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Tribunal's decision was patently unreasonable because it ignored the principles of finality and the rule against collateral attack, effectively allowing the relitigation of an issue already decided by a decision-maker with concurrent jurisdiction.