ARL has intervened before the Supreme Court of Canada to articulate the important differences between section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects freedom of expression, and section 3 of the Charter, which protects the right to vote.
ARL has intervened before the Supreme Court of Canada to assist the Court in determining the standard with which to review the legality of “subordinate legislation” – meaning rules passed by the government or administrative bodies pursuant to ordinary legislation.
ARL intervened before the Supreme Court of Canada on the division of powers. ARL submitted that the powers of each order of government must be interpreted as being “exclusive” with limited overlapping jurisdiction, in accordance with the text of the Constitution Act, 1867.
ARL intervened before the Supreme Court of Canada to make submissions on the role of international law in interpreting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
ARL intervened before the Supreme Court of Canada to assist the Court with respect to the legal impact of a declaration made under s.52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 that an unconstitutional law is of “no force or effect”
ARL intervened before the Surpeme Court of Canada in this landmark administrative law case. It offered a framework for how courts should review decisions of administrative bodies – and specifically that they should do so not based on policy considerations, but based on the law the legislature has enacted. The Court’s decision largely dovetailed with ARL’s submissions.
ARL intervened before the Supreme Court of Canada on the issue of when intermediate courts of appeal may decline to follow their own binding precedent.
In ARL’s first intervention before the Supreme Court, it submitted that there is no duty to consult Aboriginal groups in the legislative process, having regard to Canada’s separation of powers and the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. A majority of justices of the Supreme Court agreed.