Few lawyers get the chance to work on a case appearing before the Supreme Court of Canada – and even fewer do as students.
Three students at Osgoode Hall Law School’s Community and Legal Aid Services Program (CLASP), however, can now count themselves among that select group.
In October 2025, CLASP was granted leave to intervene in Democracy Watch v Canada (SCC Case No. 41576) – a Supreme Court case that examines how parliamentary authority and judicial oversight should be balanced to uphold the law.
The case stems from the Ethics Commissioner’s decision clearing Justin Trudeau in the WE Charity conflict-of-interest investigation. Democracy Watch disagreed with the finding and asked the courts to review the decision. The Federal Court of Appeal refused, and the matter is now before the Supreme Court.
The appeal raises broader constitutional questions about when, and to what extent, courts may be prevented from reviewing findings made by administrative decision-makers. The judicial review process allows judges to examine decisions of administrative bodies (for example, the Landlord and Tenant Board, Immigration and Refugee Board and Human Rights Tribunal, etc.). This acts as a final safeguard, ensuring decisions are properly reached. Partial privative clauses – rules that restrict court review of some government decisions – may limit this safeguard.
In its intervention, CLASP argued that partial privative clauses are unconstitutional because they infringe upon the courts’ supervisory role of overseeing administrative decision-makers. But, if the Supreme Court decides these clauses are valid, CLASP proposed a test to ensure that any limits on judicial review remain very narrow.
The case was heard on Jan. 14 and 15, with the court reserving judgment.
CLASP students Hannah Velle, Hazal Gurcan and Lauren Vieira were deeply involved throughout the intervention. During every stage of the process, they contributed by researching legal issues, drafting materials and assisting with filings – an unusually hands-on appellate experience for students – and worked closely with CLASP Review Counsel Steven Yu, Subodh Bharati and Anum Malik.
“It was such a unique experience to contribute to a case before Canada’s top court,” says Velle. “Everyone on the team worked incredibly hard, and it really solidified my interest in appellate work.”
Vieira describes the experience as significant and memorable.
“This has definitely been the highlight of law school so far,” she says. “We really worked as a team and were integral to the whole process, which is rare for students.”
Fifteen groups were granted leave in the case, signalling the court’s view that it raises issues of significant importance and merits consideration from a wide range of perspectives.
The court’s reasons are expected to clarify the scope of judicial review and shape the development of administrative law in the post- Dunsmuir, post-Vavilov era.
Yu, who presented before the court on Jan. 15, commends the CLASP team and students for their contributions and hard work.
“We wanted to highlight access to justice and the human impact of limits on judicial review,” he says. “This was a truly collaborative effort – our (arguments) reflected the collective hard work, commitment and thoughtful contributions of all the students and counsel on the project.”