Post?Vancouver (City) v Ward Results
Author | W.H. Charles |
Pages | 101-121 |
101
Chapter 7
POST–VANCOUVER (CITY) v WARD R ESULT S
A. INTRODUCTION
The Vancouver (City) v Ward1 decision by the Supreme Court of Canada pro-
vided lower courts with a much-needed analytical structure with which
to work out Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms2 damages issues.3 But
what would be the practical effect of this decision upon Charter damages
claims? How would potential litigants and lower court s respond to the new
judicial guidance? From one commentator’s perspective, the new approach
appeared to be more flexible and open-ended than the pre-Ward judicia l ap-
proach.4Ward also demonstrated that Charter dama ges, as a constitutional
remedy, could serve both important public interests and personal, private
needs. Damages could also fill a remedial gap in situations where a dec-
laration of invalidity would not be considered an adequate remedy. From a
more public perspective, the modest compensation awarded by the courts
in Ward would probably not have too negative an effect on good gover nance.
Offsetting these positive fac tors are the still-ex isting operational restric-
tions on Charter dama ges, represented by jurisdictional and time limitations
2 Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982
(UK), 1982, c 11 [Charter].
3 See Kent Roach, Constitu tional Remedies in Can ada, 2d ed (Toronto: Canada
Law Book, 2013) (loose-leaf October 2 014 supplement) § 11.400 at 11-21.
4 See ibid, § 11.500 at 11-26.2: in R oach’s opinion, the Ward approach is “less rule
based and rest rictive than prev ious jurisprudence.”
U C D102
as well as the issue of concurrent tort claims.5 In addition, there is a concern
that the $5,000 award granted to Mr Ward might come to be considered
and accepted as a conventional Charter award.6 Unfor tunately, post-Ward
experience is somewhat limited, span ning only four and a half years (to the
end of 2014) and involving only thir ty-three cases.7 Even so, some tentative
observations can be offered.
It is interesting to note that the number of post-Ward cases heard by the
courts per year in four and a ha lf years, which amounts to 7.3 cases per year,
is more than three times the number of cases per year for the first period,
1984–94, (1.9 per year) and more than two times the number of cases per year
for the second period, 1995–2010, (3.3 per year). Greater public familiarity
with the Charter and its remedies may account for some of the increase in
the number of cases, but a more important factor may be the high-profile
impact of the Ward decision upon the legal community. The significant in-
crease in the number of Charter damages claims goi ng to trial is even more
impressive considering that during the four-and-a-half-year period, more
than half a dozen claims have been rejected by the courts at the pre-trial
stage due to inadequate pleadings.8 In some of these cases, the claimants
have been permitted by the court to amend their pleadings. How many of
them actually re-liti gated their claims is unknown.
Whether the Ward decision influenced the number of claims is un-
certain given the relatively short time involved. But perhaps the Supreme
Court’s analysis of the pur poses of Charter damages a nd clarification of the
factors involved in establishing the proper basis for a Charter claim encour-
5 These obstacles are mentioned by Roach, ibid, and Al len M Linden, “Charter
Damage Clai ms: New Dawn or Mirage?” (2012) 39:4 The Advocates’ Quar terly
426. The Supreme Cour t in Ward, above note 1 at para 58, confirms that prov-
incial crim inal courts do not have the power to award da mages under s 24(1)
of the Charter.
6 See, for example, Roach, above note 3, § 11.721 at 11-31, w ho expresses concern
that a $5,00 0 award might become the standard awa rd for s 24(1) damages
because of the Ward decision. However, he is also comforted by the fac t that
the Supreme Court “appea rs to contemplate that some higher and some lower
sums will be w ithin the range of what is appropriate a nd just.”
7 See Appendi x 1, cases 72–104.
(AG), 2014 NS SC 280; Mancuso v Cana da (National Health and Welfare), 2014
Ontario, 2014 ONSC 5179; Hne ihen (Litigation guar dian of) v Centre fo r Addic-
tion and Mental Hea lth (Queen Stree t Division), 2014 ONSC 55.
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
