Case information

Charter of Rights – Right to equality – Right to liberty – Judgments and orders – Summary judgments – Respondent bringing motion to strike applicants’ statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action – Members of Armed Forces seeking compensation for injuries suffered in service – What is the nature of relationship between Canada and its Armed Forces injured in service? – Is there a “social covenant” between Canada and injured Armed Forces members to provide equitable compensation and support? – What legal effect can be given to “social covenant”? – What is scope of “honour of the Crown” doctrine? – Does it apply outside the context of Aboriginal Law and s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982? – Can membership in Armed Forces be recognized as a “special relationship” with Crown under “honour of the Crown” doctrine? – Can membership in Armed Forces be recognized as analogous ground under s. 15 of the Charter? – Can s. 7 of the Charter create positive obligations on government in unique circumstances, or is its application limited to situations where deprivation is imposed by government?

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicants are members or former members of the Canadian Forces who suffered injuries in the course of their duties. They commenced an action, claiming that the compensation they receive under the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Compensation Act, S.C. 2005, c. 21 is inadequate, and violates a “social covenant” that is binding on the federal government by virtue of the doctrine of honour of the Crown. The applicants contend that the benefits now provided are inferior to those provided under the previous legislation. They allege, inter alia, that Canada acted unconstitutionally by creating an inadequate system of compensation for its members who have suffered injuries in the course of their military services. They also claim that the compensation scheme violates equality rights under s. 15 of the Charter and rights to life, liberty, and security of the person under s. 7. The respondent, Attorney General, brought an application to have the notice of claim struck as disclosing no cause of action. The chambers judge granted the motion in part, striking some of the applicants’ claims. On the respondent’s appeal, the notice of claim was struck in its entirety.