Skip to main content
CACL supports legal cases, where it is determined that legal judgments and principles might be established that would assist CACL in achieving its mission. For example, CACL has supported legal cases to challenge the involuntary sterilization of people with intellectual disabilities, access to education by children with intellectual disabilities, and legal cases involving the victimization of people with disabilities.
List of Legal Cases
Factum of the Interviener, Canadian Association for Community Living (Pursuant to Rule 42 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada) Canadian Association for Community Living in R. v. Nur; R. v. Charles (Charter challenge to mandatory minimum sentencing).
Factum, Council of Canadians with Disabilities and The Canadian Association for Community Living (Pursuant to Rules 42 and 59 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada)
R. v. D.I. – In the process of applying for leave to intervene
Cunningham – awaiting decision of Supreme Court of Canada
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Colaco, 2007 FCA 282 (Federal Court of
Council of Canadians with Disabilities v. VIA Rail Canada Inc.,  1 S.C.R. 650,
2007 SCC 15 (Supreme Court of Canada)
Wynberg v. Ontario (2006) 82 O.R. (3d) 561 (Ontario Court of Appeal)
Hilewitz v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration); De Jong v. Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),  2 S.C.R. 706, 2005 SCC 57 (Supreme
Court of Canada)
Nova Scotia (Minister of Health) v. J.J.,  1 S.C.R. 177, 2005 SCC 12 (Supreme
Court of Canada)
Auton (Guardian ad litem of) v. British Columbia (Attorney General),  3 S.C.R.
657, 2004 SCC 78 (Supreme Court of Canada)
Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v. N.A.P.E.,  3 S.C.R. 381, 2004 SCC 66
(Supreme Court of Canada)
Sedrak case – Supreme Court did not grant leave to intervene to the CACL and did not
grant leave to appeal to Sedrak.
The facta that are made available on this website are not intended to be legal advice. Consult a lawyer or legal worker if you need legal advice on a specific matter. Each factum was written within the context of each specific case, within the limits applicable as an intervenor, and may or may not reflect the current state of the law.