top of page
Articles
Filter By:
![Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) [2014-2015]](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/6ad81f_b27bb00b3a41411a85e70f38978cf343~mv2.jpeg/v1/fill/w_443,h_250,fp_0.50_0.50,q_30,blur_30,enc_avif,quality_auto/6ad81f_b27bb00b3a41411a85e70f38978cf343~mv2.webp)
![Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) [2014-2015]](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/6ad81f_b27bb00b3a41411a85e70f38978cf343~mv2.jpeg/v1/fill/w_305,h_172,fp_0.50_0.50,q_90,enc_avif,quality_auto/6ad81f_b27bb00b3a41411a85e70f38978cf343~mv2.webp)
Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) [2014-2015]
EFC President explains court decision and what’s next on 100 Huntley Street (Feb. 9, The Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) case led to the striking down of Canada’s laws that prohibit assisting someone to commit suicide. The federal government was given a deadline of Feb. 2016 to introduce legislation to regulate when and how assisted suicide can be legally practised. The government asked the court for a six-month extension on this deadline and eventually did pass legislati
Feb 5, 20154 min read
![Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford [2013]](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/6ad81f_b42b4a0ec90c4ef8ac71c0ba24d614c9~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_445,h_250,fp_0.50_0.50,q_30,blur_30,enc_avif,quality_auto/6ad81f_b42b4a0ec90c4ef8ac71c0ba24d614c9~mv2.webp)
![Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford [2013]](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/6ad81f_b42b4a0ec90c4ef8ac71c0ba24d614c9~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_306,h_172,fp_0.50_0.50,q_90,enc_avif,quality_auto/6ad81f_b42b4a0ec90c4ef8ac71c0ba24d614c9~mv2.webp)
Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford [2013]
Case Summary In September 2010, Justice Susan Himel of the Ontario Superior Court effectively struck down the Criminal Code provisions dealing with living on the avails (proceeds) of prostitution, keeping a common bawdy house (brothel), and communicating for the purposes of prostitution in the case of Bedford v. Attorney-General of Canada. That decision was appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal where five judges heard the appeal and decided: 1. The federal government had tw
Nov 30, 20133 min read
![Cuthbertson v. Rasouli [2013]](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/6ad81f_006114f7cddc41418ed49c93191a2fbb~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_443,h_250,fp_0.50_0.50,q_30,blur_30,enc_avif,quality_auto/6ad81f_006114f7cddc41418ed49c93191a2fbb~mv2.webp)
![Cuthbertson v. Rasouli [2013]](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/6ad81f_006114f7cddc41418ed49c93191a2fbb~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_305,h_172,fp_0.50_0.50,q_90,enc_avif,quality_auto/6ad81f_006114f7cddc41418ed49c93191a2fbb~mv2.webp)
Cuthbertson v. Rasouli [2013]
Case Summary The Cuthberton v. Rasouli case was about an Ontario man who became comatose following complications with minor brain surgery. At the time the legal proceedings began his physicians determined that he was in a persistent vegetative state, had no hope of recovery and should be withdrawn from life support. His family, including his wife who is a physician, disagreed with the diagnosis and sought an injunction to prevent the physicians from unilaterally removing Mr.
Oct 18, 20132 min read
![Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. William Whatcott [2011-2013]](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/6ad81f_accd9deac68443dbb63afda65b326f4c~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_443,h_250,fp_0.50_0.50,q_30,blur_30,enc_avif,quality_auto/6ad81f_accd9deac68443dbb63afda65b326f4c~mv2.webp)
![Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. William Whatcott [2011-2013]](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/6ad81f_accd9deac68443dbb63afda65b326f4c~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_305,h_172,fp_0.50_0.50,q_90,enc_avif,quality_auto/6ad81f_accd9deac68443dbb63afda65b326f4c~mv2.webp)
Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. William Whatcott [2011-2013]
The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada was granted leave to intervene by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. William Whatcott case which was heard on October 12, 2011. This case involves the expression of religious comment in public policy dialogue. The EFC, along with a large number of other interveners, was granted permission to make written and verbal arguments to the Court. The EFC's arguments were made by EFC Vice-President and Genera
Feb 26, 20133 min read
![S.L. v. Commission scolaire des Chênes [2012]](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/6ad81f_006114f7cddc41418ed49c93191a2fbb~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_445,h_250,fp_0.50_0.50,q_30,blur_30,enc_avif,quality_auto/6ad81f_006114f7cddc41418ed49c93191a2fbb~mv2.webp)
![S.L. v. Commission scolaire des Chênes [2012]](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/6ad81f_006114f7cddc41418ed49c93191a2fbb~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_306,h_172,fp_0.50_0.50,q_90,enc_avif,quality_auto/6ad81f_006114f7cddc41418ed49c93191a2fbb~mv2.webp)
S.L. v. Commission scolaire des Chênes [2012]
Case Summary S.L. v. Commission scolaire des Chênes (hereafter, the "Drummondville" case), a case originating in Quebec, addressed whether parents have the right to choose the kind of education their children will receive, particularly in regard to religious instruction. The case cut to the core of what freedom of religion and conscience and parental authority mean in Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision in the case on February 17, 2012. Read our media re
Jan 31, 20123 min read
![Heintz v. Christian Horizons [2009-2010]](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/6ad81f_fac2bf4dbcc54dca8a53d9716d03ba3c~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_443,h_250,fp_0.50_0.50,q_30,blur_30,enc_avif,quality_auto/6ad81f_fac2bf4dbcc54dca8a53d9716d03ba3c~mv2.webp)
![Heintz v. Christian Horizons [2009-2010]](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/6ad81f_fac2bf4dbcc54dca8a53d9716d03ba3c~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_305,h_172,fp_0.50_0.50,q_90,enc_avif,quality_auto/6ad81f_fac2bf4dbcc54dca8a53d9716d03ba3c~mv2.webp)
Heintz v. Christian Horizons [2009-2010]
How this Decision Affects Your Ministry For information about how the Christian Horizons decision may affect your ministry, view the video above and read 'How (Not) to Read Heintz v. Christian Horizons' by Don Hutchinson, who at that time was EFC General Legal Counsel. Legal Submissions Factum of the Intervenor, The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, as submitted to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court) Commentary Lessons for Christian Ministries from Heintz
May 17, 20102 min read
![R. v. Spratt [2006-2007]](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/6ad81f_006114f7cddc41418ed49c93191a2fbb~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_443,h_250,fp_0.50_0.50,q_30,blur_30,enc_avif,quality_auto/6ad81f_006114f7cddc41418ed49c93191a2fbb~mv2.webp)
![R. v. Spratt [2006-2007]](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/6ad81f_006114f7cddc41418ed49c93191a2fbb~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_305,h_172,fp_0.50_0.50,q_90,enc_avif,quality_auto/6ad81f_006114f7cddc41418ed49c93191a2fbb~mv2.webp)
R. v. Spratt [2006-2007]
Legal Submissions (September 2006) Written legal arguments in the Spratt case. This case challenges the constitutionality of the B.C. law that prohibits protesting abortion within a certain bubble zone around abortion clinics. Spratt Factum, B.C. Court of Appeal, Sept 2006 Media Releases Alliance Before Appeal Court in Abortion Bubble Zone Case, 9/14/2007Alliance Files Factum in Abortion Bubble Zone Case, 9/18/2007
Sep 13, 20071 min read
![Three Parents Case (AA v. BB) [2007]](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/6ad81f_006114f7cddc41418ed49c93191a2fbb~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_445,h_250,fp_0.50_0.50,q_30,blur_30,enc_avif,quality_auto/6ad81f_006114f7cddc41418ed49c93191a2fbb~mv2.webp)
![Three Parents Case (AA v. BB) [2007]](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/6ad81f_006114f7cddc41418ed49c93191a2fbb~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_306,h_172,fp_0.50_0.50,q_90,enc_avif,quality_auto/6ad81f_006114f7cddc41418ed49c93191a2fbb~mv2.webp)
Three Parents Case (AA v. BB) [2007]
Three Parents Case The Supreme Court of Canada decided on September 13 not to hear the appeal of the Three Parent Case (AA v BB) from Ontario. In its decision, the court indicated it was not deciding whether or not the case presented "issues worthy of consideration by this Court or whether the Court of Appeal's judgment is well founded." The decision was only in regard to whether or not the Alliance for Marriage and the Family (AMF), of which the EFC was a member, could appe
Sep 12, 20073 min read
![BC Marriage Case [2001-2002]](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/6ad81f_006114f7cddc41418ed49c93191a2fbb~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_443,h_250,fp_0.50_0.50,q_30,blur_30,enc_avif,quality_auto/6ad81f_006114f7cddc41418ed49c93191a2fbb~mv2.webp)
![BC Marriage Case [2001-2002]](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/6ad81f_006114f7cddc41418ed49c93191a2fbb~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_305,h_172,fp_0.50_0.50,q_90,enc_avif,quality_auto/6ad81f_006114f7cddc41418ed49c93191a2fbb~mv2.webp)
BC Marriage Case [2001-2002]
Legal Submissions (July 2002) Legal arguments before the Supreme Court of British Columbia on the definition of marriage. Supreme Court of British Columbia Appeal (2001) Legal arguments of the Interfaith Coalition for Marriage before the B.C. Court of Appeal on the definition of marriage. Interfaith Coalition Factum
Jun 30, 20031 min read
bottom of page