Reasonable and Effective Means Sample Clauses

Reasonable and Effective Means. 2022 SCC 27 (CanLII) [19] The chambers judge determined that granting CCD public interest standing would not be a reasonable and effective means of bringing the issue before the courts. He agreed that CCD had the expertise and resources to advance the claim, but remained unpersuaded of its ability to satisfy the “reasonable and effective means” factor for several reasons: 1. CCD’s undertaking to provide a robust record at trial failed to satisfy its onus to meet the test for public interest standing on summary trial, and the chambers judge doubted that CCD could put forward “a sufficiently concrete and well-developed factual setting” upon which to decide the question it had raised (para. 69); 2. CCD failed to persuade the chambers judge that it could fairly represent the interests of everyone affected by the impugned provisions, let alone “all residents of British Columbia”, to whom it referred in its amended notice of civil claim (para. 76); 3. CCD’s advocacy efforts over the last 40 years did not necessarily commend it as an advocate for those with mental health-related disabilities, given that its engagement in advocacy for mental health-related disabilities, as opposed to physical health-related disabilities, had been relatively limited; and 2022 SCC 27 (CanLII) 4. the Benard affidavit did not explain why it was unrealistic to expect individual plaintiffs who have mental disabilities and who have experienced the impacts of the impugned legislation to bring and see through a challenge to that legislation. [20] Cumulatively weighing the three factors, the chambers judge declined to exercise his discretion to grant public interest standing and dismissed CCD’s action.

Reasonable and Effective Means. [25] Given its conclusion on the serious justiciable issue factor, the Court of Appeal did not review the other Downtown Eastside factors. It did note, however, that the chambers judge’s analysis on the third factor did not comport with the flexible, purposive approach to standing mandated in Downtown Eastside. Specifically, it disagreed with any suggestion on the chambers judge’s part that, “if possible, it is always preferable for a public interest organization to assist an individual party in the background rather than seek public interest standing” (C.A. reasons, at para. 115 (emphasis deleted)).