| Joe Arvay QC |
|
|---|---|
Joe Arvay |
|
| Born | March 18, 1949 Welland, Ontario |
Joseph Arvay, QC is a Canadian lawyer who has argued numerous landmark cases involving civil liberties and constitutional rights. In 2000 he was awarded the Walter S. Tarnopolsky Human Rights Award; described by Madam Justice Michèle Rivet as "one of Canada's most tireless civil rights and human rights lawyers ... He has made a exceptional commitment to human rights in this country."[1] He was voted one of Canadian Lawyer’s Top 25 Most Influential in 2010 & 2011 by Canadian Lawyer Magazine.[2] Peter Gzowski puts it as follows "[Arvay] has had a remarkable role in shaping how our Constitution is interpreted". In regards to his HST battle, Michael Smith describes Arvay as "one of the best. A brilliant legal mind, and meaner than a junkyard dog to boot."[3]
Contents |
This year (2011) he argued the case for the Insite safe injection site and whether it falls under provincial or federal jurisdiction. "Insite is a life-raft for the people in the Downtown Eastside," Arvay told the court. "A life-raft in a sea of misery."[4]. On Sept 30th 2011 Canada's Supreme Court ruled that North America's only legal drug injection facility can stay open. The top court issued its 9-0 unanimous decision in a case that has drawn international attention.[5]. "The battle for other sites across Canada remains to be fought," Arvay said, adding the ruling will give those cities hope. "Insite is going to remain open no matter what."
He is also working with the BC Civil Liberties Association in a fight to decriminalize assisted suicide. In the B.C. supreme Court he’ll contend the law removes a person’s right to make decisions about their body and also restricts physicians’ freedom to administer compassionate end-of-life care. Arvay told the court the lawsuit must be heard quickly so Gloria Taylor can exercise her “constitutional right” to a doctor-assisted suicide. “We have a dying woman who wants to exercise her constitutional right to die with dignity ... The only way that’s going to happen is if the trial is heard in November, because her situation is urgent.”[6]
Arvay recently represented the plaintiff in a landmark case granting children of sperm donors the same rights regarding access to information about their birth parents as adopted children. Joseph Arvay stated that “this case represents a monumental victory for our client, Olivia Pratten, and all the donor offspring she represents who have for too long been disadvantaged by their exclusion from the legislative landscape which has promoted and perpetuated prejudice and stereotyping and caused them grave harm.”[7]
Arvay has defended high-profile cases such as the Little Sisters' Book Store trial, where he argued gay and lesbian rights in the context of freedom of speech. He was also involved in the APEC inquiry that tested the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the role government has, and does not have, in censoring the public's inherent right to speak out on matters of political importance.[8]
Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 SCR 143 is the first Supreme Court of Canada case to deal with equality rights of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Section 15). Arvay was the appellant for the Attorney General of British Columbia. The Court held that the Law Society's rule violated section 15 and it could not be saved under section 1.
Egan v. Canada, [1995] was one of a trilogy of equality rights cases published by a very divided Supreme Court of Canada in the spring of 1995. In this case Arvay was counsel for the plaintiffs James Egan and John Norris Nesbit. It stands today as a landmark Supreme Court case which established that sexual orientation constitutes a prohibited basis of discrimination under Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.[9]
Arvay was counsel in the Supreme Court of Canada for Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No. 36 where he successfully argued that a local school board could not impose its religious values by refusing to permit the use of books in K-1 that sought to promote tolerance of same-sex relationships.