Minister of Justice v. Borowski
Encyclopedia
Minister of Justice v. Borowski, is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada
decision on the standard for allowing public interests to gain standing to challenge a law. The Court developed what is known as the Borowski test for public interest standing.
activist in Saskatchewan who wanted to challenge the abortion provisions under section 287 of the Criminal Code as violations to right to life in the Canadian Bill of Rights
.
In a seven to two decision the Court found that Borowski had standing to challenge the law.
Borowski was found to meet this requirement as it would be difficult to bring such an issue to court without having an interest group make a challenge.
The test was later re-articulated more narrowly in the decision of Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)
, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236.
Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts, and its decisions...
decision on the standard for allowing public interests to gain standing to challenge a law. The Court developed what is known as the Borowski test for public interest standing.
Background
Joseph Borowski was a prominent pro-lifePro-life
Opposition to the legalization of abortion is centered around the pro-life, or anti-abortion, movement, a social and political movement opposing elective abortion on moral grounds and supporting its legal prohibition or restriction...
activist in Saskatchewan who wanted to challenge the abortion provisions under section 287 of the Criminal Code as violations to right to life in the Canadian Bill of Rights
Canadian Bill of Rights
The Canadian Bill of Rights is a federal statute and bill of rights enacted by Prime Minister John Diefenbaker's government on August 10, 1960. It provides Canadians with certain quasi-constitutional rights in relation to other federal statutes...
.
In a seven to two decision the Court found that Borowski had standing to challenge the law.
Reasons of the court
Justice Martland, wrote the decision for the majority. Martland's reasoning was largely based on the previous decision of Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 138. He stated that a plaintiff seeking a declaration to invalidate a law must show that they are directly affected by it, or have a genuine interest as a citizen and there be no reasonable and effective alternative means to challenge the law.Borowski was found to meet this requirement as it would be difficult to bring such an issue to court without having an interest group make a challenge.
Commentary
Martland had been in dissent in the Thorson decision as he felt the standard of public interest standing was too broad. Here, he followed the reasoning of the majority in Thorson to its "logical" conclusion that produced results that many have found absurd.The test was later re-articulated more narrowly in the decision of Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)
Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)
Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada , [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case on the law of standing in Canada...
, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236.
See also
- List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (Laskin Court)
- Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General)Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General)Borowski v. Canada , [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342 is the leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on mootness of an appealed legal issue. The Court declined to decide whether the fetus had a right to life under sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms...
, [1989]