From September 24, 2024:

We're delighted to let you know that a remarkable 13 organizations applied to be interveners in the Charter Challenge (up from 4 in our first hearing, which shows how much interest the challenge is generating), and the court invited six of them to submit full arguments (which you can read in detail on our website).

What are "Interveners"?

Interveners are known as "friends of the court" - their job is to "advance different and valuable insights and perspectives [from those of the parties in the case] that will ... further the Court’s determination of the matter."

The court will accept interveners if they can prove that they "will likely make a useful contribution to the litigation", have "an important perspective distinct from the immediate parties" and/or have "special expertise" relevant to the case.

The court felt that the majority of the 13 intervener applicants had perspectives that largely aligned with our arguments (which we take as an indication that our arguments are essentially correct :)), and in the end accepted 6 of the applications.

Who Did the Court Accept?

Five of the accepted interveners make points that largely align with our arguments, and one argues against our claim that the voting system is "subject to Charter scrutiny".

The five who are generally aligned with our arguments are:

Canadian Lawyers for International Human Rights - CLAIHR argues that international law and conventions solidly support our position that political opinion is a prohibited ground of discrimination under s15 of the Charter.

Women's Legal Action and Education Fund - LEAF argues that the judge applied an overly strict and insufficiently broad standard in assessing our s15 arguments, and failed to use a "substantive equality" lens.

Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg - the ACW also argues that the judge used too narrow an interpretation of our s3 right to vote and that the 60% of Indigenous people live in urban ridings don't end up with effective representation under our FPTP voting system.

Fair Vote Canada - FVC participated in the first trial, and argues that Canada's voting system emerged in a pre- (even anti-democratic) period, and that the court should rule because politicians have blocked change out of partisan self-interest.

South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario - SALCO takes issue with the CCF's contention (see below) that the Charter doesn't apply to the electoral aspects of the Constitution. They don't directly address racial aspects of the case, except insofar as they argue that changing provincial seat allocations is subject to the Charter.

The one organization not aligned with our arguments is the Canadian Constitution Foundation - they intervened in our original hearing and continue to argue that the electoral system is immune from Charter scrutiny and that Parliament alone has the power to change it.

We strenuously reject the CCF's argument, and in our response to the interveners (submitted on Sep 16th) point out numerous reasons why the voting system is indeed subject to scrutiny.

Next Step - Government's Response

We're currently waiting for the government to submit its response to the interveners. After that, we go to court (currently scheduled for November 5th and 6th).