Key Issues:

1. Public Interest Standing: Can CCD challenge the constitutionality of BC’s mental health legislation without individual plaintiffs?
2. Principles of Legality and Access to Justice: How these principles influence public interest standing.

Background:

• CCD and two individuals initially challenged provisions allowing involuntary psychiatric treatment without consent, alleging violations of sections 7 and 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
• Individual plaintiffs withdrew, leaving CCD to continue the case alone.
• The Attorney General sought dismissal, arguing CCD lacked standing.

Lower Courts:

• BC Supreme Court: Dismissed the case, ruling CCD did not meet the public interest standing criteria.
• BC Court of Appeal: Reversed this decision, highlighting the importance of legality and access to justice.

Supreme Court Decision:

• Appeal Dismissed, Cross-Appeal Allowed: CCD granted public interest standing.
• Reasoning: Public interest standing is essential for access to justice and legality. A concrete factual setting can be established without directly affected plaintiffs through evidence from non-plaintiff witnesses.

Implications:

• The decision supports public interest standing for organizations to challenge laws, emphasizing a flexible, discretionary approach without requiring directly affected individuals, thereby enhancing access to justice and the rule of law.