Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-h6jzd Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-02-16T16:15:02.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Disability Rights Activists in the Supreme Court of Canada: Legal Mobilization Theory and Accommodating Social Movements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 December 2009

Lisa Vanhala
Lisa Vanhala*
Affiliation:
London School of Economics and Political Science
*
Lisa Vanhala, Centre for the Study of Human Rights, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. Disability rights organizations have been active participants before the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) since the mid-1980s but they have been completely neglected in the literature on social movement legal mobilization. This paper seeks to remedy this lacuna by providing an overview of the litigation activity of the main disability rights organizations. It builds on an emerging complementary theoretical perspective for understanding the participation by movement actors in the Court. Through an analysis of shared and contested collective meaning frames within and across social movement organizations we can complement existing theoretical explanations for the overall development of legal mobilization by social movement actors.

Résumé. Les organismes du mouvement de défense des droits des personnes handicapées prennent une part active aux litiges devant la Cour suprême du Canada depuis le milieu des années quatre-vingt. Toutefois, on ne retrouve pas trace de ce mouvement dans la littérature sur la mobilisation des acteurs collectifs dans les lieux juridiques. Le présent article vient combler cette lacune en analysant les activités du mouvement dans ce domaine. L'article s'appuie sur une perspective théorique novatrice et complémentaire qui s'intéresse particulièrement aux rôles que jouent les idées organisationnelles et les relations intra-organisationnelles (conflictuelles ou de coopération) au sein du mouvement. L'article met de l'avant une explication qui combine ces deux facteurs pour mieux expliquer les tendances activistes de participation aux litiges par rapport aux analyses «classiques» qui ne prennent en compte que les ressources ou le contexte politique.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 42 , Issue 4 , December 2009 , pp. 981 - 1002
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andersen, Ellen Ann. 2005. Out of the Closets and into the Courts: Legal Opportunity Structure and Gay Rights Litigation. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Brodie, Ian. 2001. “Interest Group Litigation and the Embedded State: Canada's Court Challenges Program.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 34(2): 357–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council of Canadians with Disabilities. 2007. “About us.” https://www.ccdonline.ca/about-us/index.htm (accessed October 7, 2007).Google Scholar
Driedger, Diane. 1989. The Last Civil Rights Movement: Disabled Peoples' International. London: Hurst and Co.Google Scholar
Epp, Charles R. 1998. The Rights Revolution: Lawyers, Activists, and Supreme Courts in Comparative Perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glendon, Mary Ann. 1991. Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
Hansford, Thomas. 2004. “Information provision, organizational constraints, and the decision to submit an Amicus curiae brief in a US Supreme Court case.” Political Research Quarterly 57(2): 219–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hein, Gregory. 2001. “Interest Group Litigation and Canadian Democracy.” In Judicial Power and Canadian Democracy, ed. Howe, Paul and Russell, Peter H.. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
Heyer, Katharina. 2002. “The ADA on the Road: Disability Rights in Germany.” Law and Social Inquiry 27(4): 723–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilson, Chris. 2002. “New Social Movements: The Role of Legal Opportunity.” Journal of European Public Policy 9(2): 238–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holyoke, Thomas. 2003. “Choosing battlegrounds: Interest group lobbying across multiple venues.” Political Research Quarterly 56(3): 325–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Intervener, factum. Women's Legal Education and Action Fund and Disabled Women's Network Canada. Auton (Guardian ad litem of) v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 657, 2004 SCC 78.Google Scholar
Keck, Margaret and Sikkink, Kathryn. 1998. Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
MacFarlane, Emmett. 2008. “Terms of Entitlement: Is There a Distinctly Canadian ‘Rights Talk’?” Canadian Journal of Political Science 41(2): 303–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manfredi, Christopher. 2005. Feminist Activism in the Supreme Court: Legal Mobilization and the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
March, James and Olsen, Johan. 1998. “The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders.” International Organization 52(4): 943–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meister, Joan. 2003. “An Early DAWNing (1985–1994).” In Making Equality: History of Advocacy and Persons with Disabilities in Canada, ed. Stienstra, Deborah and Wight-Felske, Aileen. Concord ON: Captus Press.Google Scholar
Meister, Joan and Masunda, Shirley. 1998. “DAWNing Manual.” http://www.dawncanada.net/ENG/ENGspecial.htm (accessed December 12, 2007).Google Scholar
Morag-Levine, Noga. 2003. “Partners no more: Relational transformation and the turn to litigation in two conservationist organizations.” Law and Society Review 372: 457–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, F.L. and Allen, Avril. 2001. “Feminists and the Courts: Measuring Success in Interest Group Litigation in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 34(1): 55–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neufeldt, Aldred. 2003. “Growth and Evolution of Disability Advocacy in Canada.” In Making Equality: History of Advocacy and Persons with Disabilities in Canada, ed. Stienstra, Deborah and Wight-Felske, Aileen. Concord ON: Captus Press.Google Scholar
Olson, Susan. 1984. Clients and Lawyers: Securing the Rights of Disabled Persons. Westport CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Park, Peter, Monteiro, Althea and Kappel, Bruce. 2003. “People First: the History and the Dream.” In Making Equality: History of Advocacy and Persons with Disabilities in Canada, ed. Stienstra, Deborah and Wight-Felske, Aileen. Concord ON: Captus Press.Google Scholar
Peters, Yvonne. 2003. “From Charity to Equality: Canadians with Disabilities Take Their Rightful Place in Canada's Constitution.” In Making Equality: History of Advocacy and Persons with Disabilities in Canada, ed. Stienstra, Deborah and Wight-Felske, Aileen. Concord ON: Captus Press.Google Scholar
Razack, Sherene. 1991. Canadian Feminism and the Law: The Women's Legal Education and Action Fund and the Pursuit of Equality. Toronto: Second Story Press.Google Scholar
Riddell, Troy. 2004. “The Impact of Legal Mobilization and Judicial Decisions: The Case of Official Minority-Language Education Policy in Canada for Francophones outside Quebec.” Law and Society Review 38(3): 583–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Miriam. 1998. “Social Movements and Equality Seeking: The Case of Gay Liberation in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 31(2): 285–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Miriam. 2002. “Ghosts of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council: Group Politics and Charter Litigation in Canadian Political Science.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 35(1): 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Miriam. 2005. “Social Movements and Judicial Empowerment: Courts, Public Policy, and Lesbian and Gay Organizing in Canada” Politics and Society 33(2): 327–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snow, David A., Rochford, Burke Jr., Worden, Steven K. and Benford, Robert D.. 1986. “Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation.” American Sociological Review 51: 464–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solberg, Rorie and Waltenburg, Eric. 2006. “Why do interest groups engage the judiciary? Policy wishes and structural needs.” Social Science Quarterly 87: 558–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistics Canada. 2007. “Participation and Activity Limitation Survey (PALS).” http://www.statcan.ca/cgibin/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function=getSurvey&SDDS=3251&lang=en&db=IMDB&dbg=f&adm=8&dis=2 (accessed December 3, 2007).Google Scholar
Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). E. (Mrs.) v. Eve, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 388.Google Scholar
SCC. R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933SCC.Google Scholar
SCC. R. v. O'Connor, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411Google Scholar
SCC. A. (L.L.) v. B. (A.), [1995] 4 S.C.R.Google Scholar
SCC. R. v. Latimer, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 217Google Scholar
SCC. Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 241Google Scholar
SCC. R. v. Ewanchuk, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 330Google Scholar
SCC. R. v. Darrach, 2000 SCC 46, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 443Google Scholar
SCC. R. v. Latimer, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 3Google Scholar
SCC. Auton (Guardian ad litem of) v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 657, 2004 SCC 78Google Scholar
Vlug, Henryn. Affidavit of Board Member of the Canadian Disability Rights Council. In R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933.Google Scholar