ARCH represents groups and individuals in test case litigation. These are cases whose outcome will affect a large number of people with disabilities or will significantly affect the law as it relates to the rights of people with disabilities in Ontario. We focus our test case litigation work in the priority areas set by our Board of Directors.
Over the years, ARCH has been involved in many leading disability-related cases, including cases at the Supreme Court of Canada. ARCH has represented persons with disabilities in significant and seminal test cases including Clark v Clark (1983), 40 O.R. (2d) 383, Roberts v Ontario (1994), 117 D.L.R. (4th) 297, and Eaton v Brant County Board of Education [1997] 1 S.C.R. 241.
ARCH has represented interveners, and acted as an Intervener, in many test cases at all levels of court and tribunals, including the following test cases before the Supreme Court of Canada:
R. v. Slatter, 2020 SCC 36
S.A. v. Metro Vancouver Housing Corp., 2019 SCC 4Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General),2018 SCC 31
Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corp., [2017] 1 SCR 591, 2017 SCC 30
Cuthbertson v. Rasouli, [2013] 3 SCR 341, 2013 SCC 53
Moore v. British Columbia (Education),
2012 SCC 61, [2012] 3 S.C.R. 360
Canada (Attorney General) v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, 2012 SCC 45, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 524
Alberta (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) v. Cunningham, [2011] 2 SCR 670, 2011 SCC 37
Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays, [2008] 2 SCR 362, 2008 SCC 39
McGill University Health Centre (Montreal General Hospital) v. Syndicat des employés de l’Hôpital général de Montréal, [2007] 1 SCR 161, 2007 SCC 4
Council of Canadians with Disabilities v. VIA Rail Canada Inc., [2007] 1 SCR 650, 2007 SCC 15
Hilewitz v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] 2 SCR 706, 2005 SCC 57
Nova Scotia (Minister of Health) v. J.J., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 177.
Auton (Guardian ad litem of) v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 657.
Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v. N.A.P.E., [2004] 3 S.C.R. 381.
Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Martin; Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Laseur, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 504.
Lovelace v. Ontario, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 950.
British Columbia (Super. of Motor Vehicles) v. British Columbia (Council of Human Rights),[1999] 3 S.C.R. 868 [Grismer].
Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.
Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 241.
Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624.
Battlefords and District Co-operative Ltd. v. Gibbs, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 566.
Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519.
Weatherall v. Canada (Attorney General), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 872.
Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 970.
Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236.
Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989]1 S.C.R. 143.
Bhinder v. Canadian National Railway Co., [1985] 2 S.C.R. 561. ARCH intervened on behalf of the Canadian Association for the Mentally Retarded.
Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Simpsons-Sears, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536.