Canada: Chipping Away At The A2J Crisis: The SCC’s Decision In Trial Lawyers

It would be forgivable to suffer from "access to justice fatigue" when every day seems to bring a new report or statistic highlighting the crisis afflicting the Canadian legal system. But the Supreme Court of Canada has provided a reason for optimism with its decision in Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2014 SCC 59. Chief Justice McLachlin, for the majority, held that British Columbia court hearing fees are unconstitutional because they deprive litigants of effective access to the civil courts.[1]

This decision chips away at the access to justice crisis, and offers litigants and reformers several avenues of argument for future ways to fight it. It also brings to mind R v Salituro, [1991] 3 SCR 654. Both cases share the theme of respecting the proper roles of courts and legislatures.

But another aspect of Salituro sticks out too – the point that the common law develops in an "incremental" nature. Access to justice can only be achieved by following a similar course: One incremental step at a time.

The decision in Trial Lawyers is one of those steps.

What fees were at issue, and why?

The appellants alleged that two sets of BC rules of court were unconstitutional: The Supreme Court Rules, in force when this litigation started, and the Supreme Court Civil Rules, which came into force in 2010 (collectively, "the Rules"). The Rules have the status of subordinate legislation because they were enacted under BC's Court Rules Act.[2]

As Chief Justice McLachlin explained, the current fee structure looks like this:

  • For the first 3 days of trial: No fee
  • For days 4-10: $500
  • For each day over 10: $800[3]

The Rules permit a judge to exempt a party from payment, if he or she is receiving benefits under certain employment assistance legislation, "or is otherwise impoverished."[4] The scope of "otherwise impoverished" became a central issue in Trial Lawyers.

The case itself originated as a family law matter, with the parties disputing custody and property issues. Both parties were unrepresented at the hearing. The mother, V, who brought the case to court, sought relief from paying the hearing fee that ultimately amounted to $3,600.[5] As McLachlin CJ put it, this was "almost the net monthly income of the family."[6]

The trial judge allowed the Attorney General; the Law Society of British Columbia; and the Canadian Bar Association's BC branch to intervene to make submissions on the constitutionality of the hearing fee scheme, and stayed V's obligation to pay in the meantime.[7] He eventually found the scheme unconstitutional and struck it down. On appeal, the BC Court of Appeal agreed on unconstitutionality, but used the "reading in" remedy so the exemption provision would read, " otherwise impoverished or in need."[8]

How are the provisions unconstitutional?

Moving on to the Supreme Court's constitutional analysis, one is struck by the majority's innovative interpretation of the Constitution – particularly when this was not a Charter case, but was instead decided pursuant to the Constitution Act, 1867.

The nuts and bolts of Chief Justice McLachlin's division of powers reasoning were as follows:

  • Section 92(14) gives the province the authority to charge hearing fees, as part of its power over the administration of justice in the province.[9]
  • But there are two principles of constitutional interpretation that limit this authority:
    • The express provisions of the Constitution must be read together "so that the Constitution operates as an internally consistent harmonious whole."[10]
    • The express provisions "must be consistent not only" with each other, but also "with requirements that "'flow by necessary implication from those terms.'"[11]
    • Applying these principles leads to section 96, which operates as a limit on the province's authority under section 92(14). Section 96 protects "the core jurisdiction of provincial superior courts,"[12] and "therefore restricts the legislative competence of provincial legislatures and Parliament – neither level of government can enact legislation that abolishes the superior courts or removes part of their core or inherent jurisdiction."[13]

So how did the Court conclude that section 96 was expansive enough to take on the mantle of protecting access to justice to the superior courts, and not just the actual jurisdiction of the courts? For one, the majority had to ask the right question:

[31]            It is not suggested that legislating hearing fees that prevent people from accessing the courts would abolish or destroy the existence of the courts.  The question is rather whether legislating hearing fees that prevent people from accessing the courts infringes on the core jurisdiction of the superior courts.

[Emphasis added.]

Then, the answer had to rest on a principled foundation. Chief Justice McLachlin established this foundation in three main ways, by: (1) Bringing together an interesting collection of section 96 case law and adding an access to justice gloss; (2) fleshing out the meaning of the rule of law; and (3) applying the proportionality principle from Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 in a substantive sense.[14]

Chief Justice McLachlin's analysis on the section 96 point is lovely, logical, and worth reviewing in full.[15] After reviewing several section 96 cases (including the law school classic Re Residential Tenancies Act, 1979)[16] she remarked: "The thread throughout these cases is that laws may impinge on the core jurisdiction of the superior courts by denying access to the powers traditionally exercised by those courts."[17] She then stated:

 [35]           Here, the legislation at issue bars access to the superior courts in yet another way ― by imposing hearing fees that prevent some individuals from having their private and public law disputes resolved by the courts of superior jurisdiction ― the hallmark of what superior courts exist to do. As in MacMillan Bloedel, a segment of society is effectively denied the ability to bring their matter before the superior court.

[36]            It follows that the province's power to impose hearing fees cannot deny people the right to have their disputes resolved in the superior courts.  To do so would be to impermissibly impinge on s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867.  Rather, the province's powers under s. 92(14) must be exercised in a manner that is consistent with the right of individuals to bring their cases to the superior courts and have them resolved there.

Returning to the interpretive principles discussed above, McLachlin CJ concluded on this point by holding that:

The right of Canadians to access the superior courts flows by necessary implication from the express terms of s. 96 of the Constitution, as we have seen. It follows that the province does not have the power under s. 92(14) to enact legislation that prevents people from accessing the courts.[18]

Next, the rule of law. Justice Rothstein in dissent (more on this later) said that "the rule of law is a vague and fundamentally disputed concept" that lawyers use to bolster "'their particular view of what the law should be.'"[19] The majority did not take this cynical view, but instead drew practical requirements from what can, admittedly, be an amorphous concept:

As access to justice is fundamental to the rule of law, and the rule of law is fostered by the continued existence of the s. 96 courts, it is only natural that s. 96 provide some degree of constitutional protection for access to justice.

In the context of legislation which effectively denies people the right to take their cases to court, concerns about the maintenance of the rule of law are not abstract or theoretical. If people cannot challenge government actions in court, individuals cannot hold the state to account ― the government will be, or be seen to be, above the law.  If people cannot bring legitimate issues to court, the creation and maintenance of positive laws will be hampered, as laws will not be given effect.  And the balance between the state's power to make and enforce laws and the courts' responsibility to rule on citizen challenges to them may be skewed: Christie v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2005 BCCA 631 (CanLII), 262 D.L.R. (4th) 51, at paras. 68-9, per Newbury J.A.[20]

The third element, related to the rule of law, is proportionality. Chief Justice McLachlin cited Justice Karakatsanis's point fromHryniak that "without an accessible public forum for the adjudication of disputes, the rule of law is threatened and the development of the common law undermined."[21] Later in her reasons, Chief Justice McLachlin rejected the argument that hearing fees actually promote proportionality:

[61]            The contention that this hearing fee regime promotes proportionality and efficiency by weeding out unmeritorious cases and encouraging shorter trials, thereby actually increasing access to the courts, does not answer the findings of the trial judge that it unconstitutionally prevents access to the courts.  Moreover, the trial judge held that it is "dubious" that the hearing fees at issue here increase efficacy and fairness (para. 310).  They penalize long trials simply because they are long, and do so by incremental leaps.  But long trials are not necessarily inefficient.  Prolonged trials may be caused by the nature of the case or the evidence.  Litigants in long but efficient trials ought not to be penalized by hearing fees — particularly fees that escalate with the length of the trial.

[62]            Moreover, the plaintiff who is required to pay the hearing fee may not control the length or efficiency of the trial — the defendant may be responsible for prolonging the matter.  The ability of the trial judge to make orders for costs against such a defendant does not address the real problem — before being able to set a matter down for trial the plaintiff must undertake to pay hearing fees that may escalate through no fault of her own.  If she cannot afford the prospective fees, she may reasonably conclude that she cannot bring her dispute to the court.

What is the test to determine whether court fees are unconstitutional, and how was it applied on the facts?

The test is one of "undue hardship":

...when hearing fees deprive litigants of access to the superior courts, they infringe the basic right of citizens to bring their cases to court.  That point is reached when the hearing fees in question cause undue hardship to the litigant who seeks the adjudication of the superior court.[22]

[Emphasis added.]

A litigant can prove the fees would cause undue hardship even if he or she is not "truly impoverished":

A fee that is so high that it requires litigants who are not impoverished to sacrifice reasonable expenses in order to bring a claim may, absent adequate exemptions, be unconstitutional because it subjects litigants to undue hardship, thereby effectively preventing access to the courts.[23]

The majority agreed with the trial judge that BC's hearing fee scheme caused undue hardship.[24]

As did her principled constitutional analysis, Chief Justice McLachlin's discussion of undue hardship reflected a keen recognition of the reality in many courts across the country. In particular, her majority reasons:

  • Reproduced evidence from an economist's report filed at trial that explained how those not technically "impoverished" could still "have great difficulty affording the hearing fees for a 10-day trial" like this one.[25] This report also pointed out that particular groups in Canadian society might be particularly affected by high hearing fees, including First Nations people; new immigrants; and those with disabilities.[26]
  • Recognized the disconnect between the definitions of words like "indigent" and "impoverished" and the fact that many families typically considered to be "middle class" can't afford court time, including the litigant in this case.[27]
  • Acknowledged that requiring litigants to "come before the court, explain why they are indigent and beg the court to publicly acknowledge this status and excuse the payment of fees" may be "an affront to dignity."[28] (Justice Rothstein countered this in dissent, suggesting that these procedures will usually be ex parte, and litigants in family law cases already have to put their financial information before the court.)[29]
  • Maintained, at the same time, the provinces' ability to impose "hearing fees that prevent litigants from bringing frivolous or vexatious claims."[30]

In the result, the Court agreed with the trial judge that the proper remedy was to strike down the hearing fee provisions.[31] Chief Justice McLachlin made sure to confirm that V was "excused from paying the hearing fee."[32]

What did Justice Cromwell conclude?

In short and sweet concurring reasons, Justice Cromwell also added arguments to the access to justice arsenal, but based his analysis on administrative rather than constitutional law.[33] Simply stated, he explained that "there is a common law right of reasonable access to civil justice."[34] These particular Rules interfere with this right by failing to "cover people of modest means who are prevented from having a trial because of the hearing fees,"[35] and are therefore ultra vires.[36]

Why did Justice Rothstein dissent?

The theme of judicial versus legislative competence became the focal point of Justice Rothstein's vigorous dissent, which he began by stating: "Courts do not have free range to micromanage the policy choices of governments acting within the sphere of their constitutional powers."[37] His dissent should be read in full for its very different take on what the Constitution does, or does not, require when it comes to promoting access to justice.

To review a few highlights, Justice Rothstein:

  • Made much of the fact that this was a division of powers case and not a Charter case, stating that "absent a violation of the Charter and within the bounds of their constitutional jurisdiction, provincial legislatures have leeway to make policy decisions regarding the allocation of funding and the recovery of costs."[38] In his view, the Charter already covers the field of "the particular instances in which access to courts is guaranteed," through section 11(d), which guarantees the right to a criminal trial before an independent and impartial court, and section 24(1), which gives courts broad authority to fashion remedies for Charter violations.[39] Furthermore, Justice Rothstein was concerned about the fact that "[u]nlike Charter rights, rights read into s. 96 are absolute. They are not subject to s. 1 justification or the s. 33 notwithstanding clause."[40] He questioned "why access to superior courts for civil disputes warrants even stronger protection" than the protection of Charter rights.[41]
  • Disagreed with the majority's conception of the rule of law, emphasizing that it is an "unwritten principle"[42] and, even if it can be viewed as a way to fill in constitutional gaps, "gaps do not exist simply because the courts believe that the text should say something that it does not."[43] In a pithy but pointed comment, Justice Rothstein stated: "Dressing the rule of law in division of powers clothing does not disguise the fact that the rule of law, an unwritten principle, cannot be used to support striking down the hearing fee scheme."[44]
  • Thought that the majority took section 96 too far from its traditional interpretation.[45]
  • UsedHryniak in a different way, suggesting that trial judges can partly solve the problem by following the "case-management principle ofHryniak" to keep cases on track and thereby keep costs down.[46] Justice Rothstein also challenged the majority's focus on 10-day trials: "characterizing 10-day trials as the norm skews the analysis. There is no reason to believe that a 10-day trial is standard...judges have an obligation to ensure that trials do not consume unnecessarily lengthy periods."[47]
  • Found that there was already sufficient discretion built into the BC Rules at issue, to enable a trial judge to waive payment "where the hearing fees themselves would be a source of impoverishment."[48]


The Supreme Court's decision in Trial Lawyers is one piece of a much bigger, very complicated and expensive, and often disheartening puzzle. But it is a positive development nonetheless, because it shows that the highest court in the country is willing to take creative approaches to constitutional and statutory interpretation. As with Hryniak, the legacy of this case will be what parties and their counsel, public interveners, and other justice system participants make of it, and will remain another landmark on the road to access to justice.


[1] Paras 1-2.

[2] Para 9.

[3] Para 10.

[4] Para 11.

[5] Paras 3-5.

[6] Para 5.

[7] Para 6.

[8] Para 8; italics added.

[9] Paras 16-18, 23.

[10] Para 25.

[11] Para 26, citing British Columbia v Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd, 2005 SCC 49, [2005] 2 SCR 473 and Reference re Senate Reform, 2014 SCC 32, [2014] 1 SCR 704.

[12] Para 29.

[13] Para 30.

[14] Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 SCR 87.

[15] See paras 32-37.

[16] Para 33, citing inter alia Re Residential Tenancies Act, 1979, [1981] 1 SCR 714.

[17] Para 33; emphasis added.

[18] Para 37.

[19] Para 102, citing Imperial Tobacco.

[20] Paras 39-40; emphasis added.

[21] Para 38, citing Hryniak at para 26.

[22] Para 45.

[23] Para 46.

[24] Para 50.

[25] Para 52.

[26] Para 53.

[27] Paras 55-59.

[28] Para 60.

[29] Para 115.

[30] Para 47; emphasis added.

[31] Para 68.

[32] Para 69.

[33] Para 70.

[34] Para 71; bolding added.

[35] Para 77.

[36] Paras 73, 78.

[37] Para 80; bolding added.

[38] Para 84.

[39] Para 92.

[40] Para 94.

[41] Para 94.

[42] Para 87.

[43] Para 91.

[44] Para 98.

[45] Para 90.

[46] Para 110.

[47] Para 112.

[48] Para 107.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions