SCC File No. 40602

The past success of this strategy relied on the disparity of resources in the hands of potential plaintiffs and defendants, the barriers in the way of access to justice, and courts endorsing individualistic notions of justice. [...] When the immensity of state power is juxtaposed to the vulnerability of children requiring the protection of the Youth Protection Act (YPA), the consequence of the respondent’s position is easily stated: more violations of children’s rights by the state. [...] Given the pervasive presence of the administrative state in the lives of Canadians, flexible and meaningful remedies are required by the courts to ensure respect for the rule of law. [...] This submission ignores that the YPA creates legal rights; to the extent that a court identifies a policy or lack thereof as leading to the violation of these legal rights, deference to the executive is uncalled for, and indeed contrary to the express wishes of the legislature. [...] [65] The connection between the high incidence/low cost cap and the closure of the Diagnostic Centre is remote, given the range of factors that led to the District’s budgetary crisis… In other words, while systemic evidence can be instrumental in establishing a human rights complaint, the evidence about the provincial funding regime, and the high incidence/low cost cap in particular, was too remot.