New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. G.(J.)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. G.(J.)

Hearing: November 9, 1998
Judgment: September 10, 1999


Full case name:	J.G. v. The Minister of Health and Community Services, the Law Society of New Brunswick, Legal Aid New Brunswick, the Attorney General for New Brunswick and the Minister of Justice
Citations:	[1999] 3 S.C.R. 46
Ruling:	G. appeal allowed

Court membership

Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer
Puisne Justices: Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie

Reasons given

Majority by: Lamer C.J.
Joined by: Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Major and Binnie JJ.
Concurrence by: L’Heureux‑Dubé J.
Joined by: Gonthier and McLachlin JJ.

New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. G.(J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 1303 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on right to legal aid services. The Court held that the denial of legal aid to parents whose custody of their child was challenged by the government is a violation of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, the violation could be justified by the government's right to control expenditures.

1 Background
2 Opinion of the Court
3 See also
4 External links

[edit] Background

The New Brunswick Minister of Health and Community Services gained custody of three children of J.G. for a period of six months. At the end of the six months the minister applied to extend it another six months. J.G. sought to argue against it and applied for legal aid under the provincial Domestic Legal Aid program. She was refused. She challenged the legal aid policy as a violation of section 7 of the Charter.

The motions judge found that there was no violation. This decision was upheld at the Court of Appeal.

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether "indigent parents have a constitutional right to be provided with state-funded counsel when a government seeks a judicial order suspending such parents’ custody of their children."

[edit] Opinion of the Court

Chief Justice Lamer, for the majority, held that in these particular circumstances the government has an obligation to provide legal aid. He did not discount, however, the possibility that cost-reduction could be an objective sufficiently important to deny a fair hearing. In the circumstances, Lamer found that the savings from the denial to be minimal and so could not be grounds to deny J.G. her rights under section 7.