Legal Cases

28 Oct 2015 ARPA Lawyers Present to Government Panel on Assisted Suicide Recommendations

ARPA Canada was able to present to the Panel on Options for a Legislative Response to Carter v. Canada. ARPA’s legal counsel André Schutten and policy analyst Colin Postma were joined by lawyer John Sikkema. They presented three options: draft legislation using Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the "notwithstanding clause"), some recommendations on mitigating the harm of assisted suicide, and ARPA Canada’s 'third option' of amending the Criminal Code to specifically address assisted suicide and euthanasia. André Schutten began his presentation with a story of a close relative who has been in a wheelchair most of his life, who has been in and out of the hospital many times. During such hospital stays, his family has been asked, “is it worth it?” by some in the health care profession. If this kind of pressure exists to undermine the value of life for those with disabilities before any Parliamentary action on Carter, how much more afterwards. Those with disabilities will be forced to prove their worth to society, or be shamed and undervalued, Schutten said. He then presented ARPA’s draft law for using Section 33 of the Charter, the so-called ‘notwithstanding clause’ and advised the panel that it is ARPA’s position that this is the best legislative option for protecting the value of life for the most vulnerable.
Read More

21 Apr 2015 Breaking News: ARPA files constitutional challenge against abortion censorship law

Update: Check out pictures of the 150+ volunteers and 100,000 pink and blue flags at Queens Park here.  Today a press conference was held at Queen's Park, Toronto, where ARPA Canada announced that it is proceeding with legal action against the Ontario government, declaring that section 65(5.7) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) violates section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. More Information: You can read the remarks of the three participants of the press conference, Niki Pennings, spokesperson...

Read More

21 Apr 2015 Media Advisory: ARPA Canada to make announcement about legal action

For Planning Purposes April 22, 2015 ARPA CANADA TO MAKE ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT LEGAL ACTION In an afternoon press conference in the Queen’s Park Press Gallery, the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada will provide details on a constitutional challenge they filed earlier in the day. Niki Pennings, spokesperson for WeNeedaLAW.ca, will also be speaking about why WeNeedaLAW.ca has placed 100,000 pink and blue flags on the lawn in Queen’s Park. “The 100,000 flags represent the approximately 100,000+ human lives that are ended by abortion every year in Canada,” said...

Read More

21 Apr 2015 FIPPA challenge – FAQs

In January, 2012, the Ontario government quietly slipped in an amendment to the provincial Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) whereby all information related to abortion is no longer accessible via an Access To Information and Privacy (ATIP) request. Section 65(5.7) reads: “This Act does not apply to records relating to the provision of abortion services.” Note that one of the FIPPA’s purposes is to guarantee access to government information to maintain transparency and accountability. Yet this addition undermines this purpose and was never debated in the...

Read More

19 Mar 2015 Loyola Supreme Court Decision: Parental rights and religious freedom upheld

After 12 months of deliberation, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision this morning in Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General), upholding religious freedom first for the Loyola Jesuit school but also more broadly for all who seek to apply their faith to the education of their children. This is a case that every independent Christian school across the country has been watching closely. At stake in this case was the religious freedom of parents and institutions to educate children according to a worldview that might be different than that of the State education bureaucracy. Thankfully, the Court was unanimous in finding that religious communities can teach their own faith to their children from their own perspective. As you may remember, ARPA Canada led a coalition of 313 independent Christian schools and 11 post-secondary institutions to intervene in the case. The coalition was called the Association of Christian Educators and Schools (ACES) and we argued that confessional schools must be accommodated as an alternative to State-run schools. André Schutten, Legal Counsel for ARPA Canada, was in the counsel lock-down this morning and had opportunity to review the decision before it was made public. He noted the following in a press release to the media: “Our hope was that the Supreme Court would affirm hundreds of years of legal precedent that parents are the first decision-makers for their children, and that religious freedom includes the right to train children within a particular worldview. This morning, the Supreme Court has delivered.” He also said, “With this decision, the Court stood up for liberty and for parental rights. While the Court could have been stronger in some places, this is still a welcome decision.” In light of this case, ARPA Canada will be encouraging our elected leaders in Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta to rethink their one-size-fits-all approach to religion, ethics and secularism. Over the past two years, these provinces have imposed a particular religious – that is, secular – worldview on all schools through Bill 13 (Ontario, 2013), Bill 18 (Manitoba, 2014) and Bill 10 (Alberta, 2015), while ignoring or suppressing the freedom of religious institutions and families. Parents ought to have the first and final say on the religious and moral instruction of their children. While the State may assist parents in educating children, they may not override parental decisions relating to ethical and religious instruction. There has been a trend towards Statism in education in Canada. This decision gives hope to parents in stopping that slide.
Read More

19 Mar 2015 Loyola Supreme Court Decision: Religious Freedom upheld

Today, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General), upholding religious freedom for the Loyola community to teach the Catholic faith from a Catholic perspective.  At stake in this case was the religious freedom of parents and institutions to raise children according to a worldview that might be different than that of the State education bureaucracy. Thankfully, the Court was unanimous in finding that religious communities can teach their own faith to their children from their own perspective. The Association for Reformed...

Read More

19 Mar 2015 Media Advisory: ARPA Canada available for comment on Loyola case concerning freedom of religion in independent schools

For immediate release from the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada March 18, 2015  ARPA CANADA AVAILABLE FOR COMMENT ON LOYOLA CASE CONCERNING FREEDOM OF RELIGION IN INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS OTTAWA – The Supreme Court of Canada will release its decision in the Loyola case tomorrow morning at 9:45 a.m. The Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada intervened in the case to defend Christian education and parental rights from the continual encroachment of the State. At stake in this case is parental authority itself. Provincial governments are increasingly taking...

Read More

06 Feb 2015 Some initial reflections on the Supreme Court of Canada euthanasia decision

This morning the Supreme Court of Canada rendered a disappointing decision in the euthanasia case. The constitutional challenge launched by Gloria Taylor and Lee Carter and supported by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) against Canada’s criminal prohibitions of assisted suicide and euthanasia was heard by Canada’s top court on October 15. Less than four months later, the court unanimously decided to strike down the prohibition on physician assisted-suicide, giving Parliament 12 months to legislate restrictions if it so chooses. Here follow some initial reflections on the judgment. (You can read the actual judgment yourself here.)  Reasons for overturning earlier precedent In 1993, the Supreme Court ruled on the same issues in a case called Rodriguez, ruling in favour of an absolute ban on assisted suicide. If the law is already settled, then why did the Court hear this case again, and overrule their earlier decision? The reasoning for overturning Rodriguez is two-fold: First, “the law relating to the principles of overbreadth and gross disproportionality had materially advanced since Rodriguez” (para. 46); and Second, “The matrix of legislative and social facts in this case also differed from the evidence before the Court in Rodriguez… The evidence before the trial judge in this case contained evidence that, if accepted, was capable of undermining each of these conclusions [three factual findings of the Court in Rodriguez].” (para. 47). Basically, the Court felt that the law and the facts changed since Rodriguez, and so the Court felt they were free to overturn the earlier decision. 
Read More

06 Feb 2015 Euthanasia Supreme Court Decision: A sacred line has been crossed

For immediate release from the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada February 6, 2015 EUTHANASIA SUPREME COURT DECISION: A SACRED LINE HAS BEEN CROSSED OTTAWA – The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Lee Carter, et al., v. Attorney General of Canada, et al., this morning, striking down Canada’s laws against assisted suicide and signaling Parliament to create new, permissive legislation if it so desires. The unanimous decision of the Court declared that section 241(b) and s. 14 of the Criminal Code unjustifiably infringe section 7 of the Charter and are of no force or effect to the extent that they prohibit physician-assisted death for a competent adult person who (1) clearly consents to the termination of life and (2) has a grievous and irremediable medical condition that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition. The declaration of invalidity is suspended for 12 months to give Parliament time to respond. The court has left the door open to Parliament to make the new legislation restrictive. The Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada was an intervenor in the case and made written arguments to the Court last fall to defend the inviolability of human life. Mark Penninga, Executive Director of ARPA Canada, made the following comments: “A sacred line has been crossed. This decision turns the right to life from something that is objectively fixed and inviolable to something that is subjectively fluid and based on what someone feels it is worth.” “It will be logically impossible for Parliament or any legislature or court to enact safeguards that will be able to withstand future legal challenges. As we see in Belgium and the Netherlands, it is only a matter of time before these so-called safeguards are considered an unjust limitation on someone else’s rights, even allowing children or those who are depressed to be killed at the hands of the state.” “With this decision, autonomous choices have been raised as a higher value than life itself. This will have devastating consequences on the value of human life, especially for the most vulnerable in society.”
Read More

28 Jan 2015 Breaking News: Nova Scotia Supreme Court Sends Strong Message to Law Societies Refusing to Recognize Christian Law School

For immediate release from the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada January 28, 2015  NOVA SCOTIA SUPREME COURT SENDS STRONG MESSAGE TO LAW SOCIETIES REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE CHRISTIAN LAW SCHOOL  OTTAWA – The judgment in the Trinity Western University (TWU) lawsuit against the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society was released this morning, with the judge ruling in favour of TWU. The 137-page decision sets out a robust defense of religious freedom, chiding the Barristers’ Society for attempting to impose its morality on a private Christian university. At paragraph 10, Justice Campbell writes, “The Charter is not a blueprint for moral conformity. Its purpose is to protect the citizen from the power of the state, not to enforce compliance by citizens or private institutions with the moral judgments of the state.”
Read More