Welcome to “Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!”
In this episode, Kyla Lee from Acumen Law Corporation explores a case challenging a provincial Airbnb ban. The applicant, who operated multiple short-term rentals, argued that the new licensing regime violated his Charter rights—specifically, his right to equality under section 15. While the courts rejected the claim and the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the case, it raised important questions about the intersection of economic participation, immutable characteristics, and evolving forms of work in the gig economy.
Key Points Discussed
– A provincial government introduced strict licensing rules affecting short-term rentals like Airbnb
– The applicant challenged the rules as violating equality rights under the Charter
– Courts dismissed the claim and the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal
– The case raised questions about whether Charter equality protections can extend to economic realities shaped by systemic barriers
– It also touched on the limits of constitutional protection for individuals in the gig economy
Why This Case Matters
Equality rights under the Charter are meant to be interpreted broadly, yet they have traditionally excluded issues tied to property or economic status. This case offered a chance to explore how modern economic realities—such as reliance on short-term rentals for income due to systemic or personal barriers—might intersect with protected characteristics.
The gig economy is often where individuals turn when traditional employment paths are limited due to factors like disability, age, or caregiving responsibilities. If these individuals are disproportionately affected by regulatory regimes, there may be a legitimate equality concern worth considering under section 15.
Missed Opportunity for a National Standard
This case could have opened the door for the Supreme Court of Canada to reconsider how equality rights apply in a modern context, where non-traditional work is increasingly common. A decision might have clarified:
– Whether economic regulation that disproportionately affects vulnerable groups can amount to a section 15 violation
– How courts should analyze equality claims in a gig economy context
– The extent to which government regulation can indirectly impact Charter-protected rights without judicial oversight
Need for Clarity and Accountability
Without guidance from the country’s highest court, lower courts remain limited in how broadly they interpret equality protections. A richer understanding of economic participation as part of dignity and substantive equality is still lacking in Canadian jurisprudence. This case could have been a pivotal step toward filling that gap.
Topics Covered
– Section 15 of the Charter (Equality Rights)
– Gig economy and non-traditional work
– Government regulation of short-term rentals
– Access to economic participation as a rights issue
– Limits of constitutional review for property-related matters
