UM Law Rights Clinic students support Public Interest lawyer at Supreme Court hearing
Access to judicial review case could impact Canadians receiving social assistance
Rights Clinic law students at Robson Hall had the opportunity to help in a very real way with a Supreme Court of Canada appeal that could influence access to justice for Canadians receiving social assistance. In particular, the case in question involved the need for individuals to have access to judicial review of administrative tribunal decisions, and whether this would only be available in “rare cases” where legislation contains a limited right of appeal.
On November 15, 2023, the case Yatar v. TD Insurance Meloche Monnex, 2022 ONCA 446 (CanLII), was appealed before the Supreme Court of Canada. Faculty of Law clinical counsel Allison Fenske [LLB/2007] had been involved in the case as part of her work for Legal Aid Manitoba’s Public Interest Law Centre, which had been retained to intervene on behalf of the Social Planning Council of Winnipeg and the Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg. Appearing with fellow PILC lawyer Natalie Copps [LLB/2019], Fenske delivered the oral submissions to the Court.
Another intervenor party in the case, the Income Security Advocacy Centre (ISAC) has provided a comprehensive, plain-language summary of the case on its website in the September 18, 2023 article “Social Assistance recipients need meaningful access to judicial review: Upcoming Supreme Court Case”.
In summary, Ms. Yatar was injured in a car accident. Initially, her insurer paid accident benefits but later denied all benefits. Ms. Yatar applied to the Licencing Appeal Tribunal to dispute the insurer’s denial. The Tribunal found that her application was late and statute-barred based on a two-year limitation period. Ms. Yatar commenced an appeal and a judicial review application together before the Divisional Court. The legislation contains a right of appeal on questions of law only.
This case is important before the SCC because it raises questions about access to judicial review of administrative tribunal decisions, and whether judicial review would only be available in “rare cases” where legislation contains a limited right of appeal.
According to Fenske, “Our clients were concerned about how this decision might affect social assistance recipients in Manitoba, who can appeal government decisions about their benefits to the Social Services Appeal Board (SSAB), but then have a very limited statutory appeal of these SSAB decisions – they can only appeal to the Manitoba Court of Appeal, with leave, on questions of law. Our clients wanted to ensure that the needs of marginalized and vulnerable litigants were considered by the Court.”
Through her work as clinical counsel at Robson Hall, Fenske realised her work on the case could yield a hands-on opportunity for Rights Clinic students Raven Richards (3L) and Tori Zillman (3L) to help with. While the PILC lawyers had already filed their written materials, the oral hearing still needed to be prepared. This included a need to review all written submissions of all parties and intervenors of whom there were 13, (Appellant, two Respondents, and 10 other intervenors) plus the replies of the Appellant and Respondents). Oral submissions also needed to be prepared.
“Being able to help out, even in a small way, was an invaluable opportunity as I now have a foundational understanding about what intervening at the Supreme Court of Canada entails, and will be able to recall this experience if my work calls for it in the future.” – Raven Richards (3L)
“The students helped prepare summaries of the intervenor submissions and how their arguments interacted without our clients’ argument,” Fenske explained. “They were invited to attend legal team meetings to discuss strategy, and were also included in a moot that we arranged – my practice with appellate matters to run a moot of the argument – in this case before a couple retired Manitoba Court of Appeal judges and the rest of the legal team.”
“I feel incredibly lucky to have been able to have had some level of involvement with this file,” said Richards, a third-year law student working with the Rights Clinic. “This practical learning experience showed me and my colleague, Tori, just how much effort, preparation, and collaboration is involved in the intervening process. Being able to help out, even in a small way, was an invaluable opportunity as I now have a foundational understanding about what intervening at the Supreme Court of Canada entails, and will be able to recall this experience if my work calls for it in the future.”
At the time that the Supreme Court hearing arose, Fenske said the Rights Clinic students were working on a project regarding court interventions. “It was great timing to have an intervention before the SCC during their Rights Clinic course,” she said. “They provided important insights around the arguments that would be made before the SCC, fresh perspectives on our clients’ argument, and were a welcome addition to the legal team.”
In the meantime, the parties await Canada’s highest court’s decision on the matter, which is expected in the New Year. “Our arguments were well received by the court and our clients are looking forward to the SCC’s decision in the matter,” said Fenske.