Native Women's Assn of Canada v Canada
The case could be seen as unusual, because as the Court noted, "This case does not involve the typical situation of government action restricting or interfering with freedom of expression in the negative sense" and that "the respondents are requesting the Court to consider whether there may be a positive duty on governments to facilitate expression in certain circumstances."Upon reviewing the case, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the treatment of NWAC might indeed infringe section 2 of the Canadian Charter.The Court followed its precedent in Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General) to find that discussing constitutional issues with the government is "unquestionably" a form of expression, of the kind referred to in section 2.The Court, however, argued that firstly, funding for diverse groups could not be the rule with every governmental study, or "the ramifications on government spending would be far reaching indeed."The Court also briefly dismissed claims under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which entrenches Aboriginal rights equally for men and women.