Latest news with #Section7Charter
Global News
2 days ago
- Health
- Global News
Judge grants injunction request blocking Alberta's gender-affirming care legislation
Organizations that advocate for members of the LGBTQ2 community are calling a court injunction preventing the Alberta government from banning gender-affirming treatment for people under 16 'a historic win.' Egale Canada welcomed the decision in a news release on Friday afternoon. Egale along with a group called Skipping Stone and several Alberta families have argued that gender-affirming care legislation introduced in Bill 26 will cause harm. 'As we have long argued, the government should never interfere in the medical decisions of doctors and patients or prevent parents and youth from deciding what medical care is right for them,' Egale Canada said. 'Everyone deserves the ability to access health care and participate fully in their communities. 'We are grateful that the court has acted to protect access to critical medical care.' Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy When she issued the temporary injunction, Justice Allison Kuntz said the legislation raises serious issues that need to addressed in court and that her decision was in order to prevent 'irreparable harm' for young patients until the issues at play are addressed. Story continues below advertisement The organizations filed documents to seek the injunction with the Court of King's Bench of Alberta in late 2024. The LGBTQ2 groups involved in the case had argued that changes to health law violate gender-diverse young people's Section 7 Charter right to security of the person, their Section 12 right to be free from cruel and unusual treatment and their Section 15 right to equality. They also argued it violates the Alberta Bill of Rights. Bill 26 is one of three pieces of legislation affecting transgender people passed by Alberta's United Conservative government in the fall. –with files from The Canadian Press' Lisa Johnson
National Post
03-05-2025
- Politics
- National Post
Adam Zivo: When unelected judges invent rights to bike lanes and drug dens, something's wrong
On Wednesday, Ontario Premier Doug Ford claimed that Canada's politically appointed judiciary is overstepping its authority and that judges should be elected so that they are more responsive to the will of the people. His criticisms are absolutely warranted: judicial activism has run amok, causing demonstrable harms. Article content Article content Ford's comments were prompted by a recent legal battle over a law, Bill 212, that his government passed last November, to forcibly remove bike lanes on three major Toronto streets. Article content Article content Biking activists sued the province in December, arguing that the law violates cyclists' Section 7 Charter rights ('the right to life, liberty and security of the person'), and sought a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement until their case could be fully adjudicated in court. Article content Article content There is a clear test for granting such injunctions: (1) the request must concern a serious issue; (2) the applicant must experience 'irreparable harm' if the injunction is not granted; and (3) the benefits of the injunction must not outweigh any harm it causes to the public interest (this is known as the 'balance of convenience'). Article content When the Supreme Court established this test, though, it emphasized that there is a strong public interest in respecting the authority of the legislative and executive branches of government. Article content Nullifying duly enacted laws erodes the separation of powers, so, ideally, this should only be done after a full hearing, especially if constitutional matters are involved. Overruling Parliament via preliminary injunctions is supposed to be reserved for 'clear cases.' Article content Article content Likewise, when determining a balance of convenience, judges are supposed to assume that duly enacted laws serve the public interest as intended. If this is not actually the case, that is only to be recognized in the final ruling. Article content Article content With Bill 212, an Ontario Superior Court judge, Stephen E. Firestone, initially ruled that the activists had not met the 'heavy burden' of demonstrating that sufficient harms or 'a compelling overall public interest rationale' justified nullifying the provincial legislature's authority. Article content He argued that, while removing bike lanes may irreparably harm some cyclists, 'this is not a case where the applicants have no viable alternative means of transportation,' and that biking is a voluntary choice for the vast majority of people. Article content 'The courts' role on this interlocutory motion is not to second-guess the wisdom of the policy or to question whether it really serves the public interest. It is assumed to do so,' emphasized Firestone, correctly.
