Alan Young (lawyer)

i) Constitutional Challenges to the Criminal Code

After the unsuccessful obscenity challenge in 1991, Professor Young was also then unsuccessful in challenging the gambling offences in 1993.^[6] However, he was successful in striking down the drug literature prohibition under s.462.2 of the Criminal Code in 1995.^[7] He also unsuccessfully challenged the drug paraphernalia prohibition contained in the same section in four different jurisdictions and two provinces.^[8]

In 1997, Professor Young launched a constitutional challenge to the offence of marijuana possession, which was ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada.^[9] However, although the law was upheld, Professor Young created two significant exemptions to the marijuana laws. In 1996, he secured the first licence for a farmer to grow cannabis for industrial purposes (i.e. industrial hemp),^[10] and, more significantly, in a series of court cases from 1998 to 2006, he established the right of patients to use cannabis for medical purposes.^[11] These cases compelled the government to enact a medical program and to establish a supply of medical cannabis. In addition, due to the inadequacies of the medical program, Professor Young was able to secure court rulings requiring the government to amend its regulatory provisions on two occasions.

Perhaps one of the most celebrated victories of Professor Young's career is the case of R v Bedford (2013), in which he, and a team of students, successfully challenged three provisions of Canada's sex work laws.^[12] As a result of this challenge, Parliament was compelled to change the legislative regime governing prostitution. Professor Young does not support the recent amendments to the Criminal Code, pursuant to Bill C-36. For instance, in an interview with CBC, he stated that:

In 2014, the government… was given the chance to make history, but instead, chose to repeat the mistakes of history...The government has created a regime which will hurt communities, and is contrary to public interest, as it will push sex workers back into dangerous street forums.^[13]

Furthermore, in an article written by Kirk Makin for Canadian Lawyer Magazine, Professor Young's long, dedicated and difficult time defending sex workers was aptly summarized:

‘It was sad and pathetic,’ he recalls. ‘I couldn’t see the public interest behind the raid. It was just hurting people and wasting court and police time.’ The message Young took away would dictate the shape of his nascent career: the state has no business interfering with consensual, pleasure-seeking acts.^[14]

ii) Freedom of Expression

Beyond the obscenity and drug literature cases, Professor Young has also championed numerous free speech issues, including the right of aggrieved patients to picket on hospital property and the right of journalists to protect their sources.^[15] He was also retained to represent the interests of the art galleries with respect to the operation and impact of child pornography laws.^[16]

Professor Young also exercised his free speech rights by writing newspaper columns for four years between 2002 and 2006 – two with the Toronto Star and two with Now Magazine. His first column for the Toronto Star triggered a great deal of hate mail from monarchists and his first column for Now Magazine resulted in the police issuing a libel notice.^[17] Continuing on this path of stirring up debate, Professor Young published a critique of the legal profession in 2003 in a book called “Justice Defiled: Perverts, Pot Heads, Serial Killers and Lawyers.” ^[18] In the preface to the book, he noted that he chose to write an offensive book as a form of “professional suicide note,” as he wanted to expose all the blemishes and warts of the profession.

iii) Helping Individuals with Mental Disorders

Over the past 25 years, Professor Young has assisted dozens of individuals suffering from mental disorders resolve emerging conflicts with family members and state officials. More specifically, he has assisted in preventing child apprehension proceedings from being commenced, in obtaining social assistance and disability benefits, in challenging involuntary committal to psychiatric hospitals in mediating family conflicts and in securing treatment options for paranoid schizophrenics to prevent the laying of criminal charges for minor offences. Most of this work was done to prevent the escalation of conflict into legal proceedings; however, Professor Young has also represented the interests of the mentally disordered in university discipline proceedings and police discipline proceedings.

One case that aptly summarizes Professor Young's dedication to assisting those with mental disorders is R v Taylor.^[19] In 1992, he was appointed as amicus curiae by the Ontario Court of Appeal to assist a mentally-disordered appellant. As a result of this case, significant and dramatic changes were made to the test and criteria courts are to use in determining when an individual is unfit to stand trial.^[20]

iv) Helping the Incarcerated and the Wrongfully Convicted

As Director of the Innocence Project, Professor Young has worked on dozens of cases involving claims of wrongful conviction. In addition to investigating these claims, Professor Young is often required to assist these incarcerated individuals with a variety of issues relating to the conditions of their incarceration and their relationships with friends and family on the outside. Over the years, he has conducted numerous parole hearings, two applications to transfer Canadians from prisons in Thailand and the securing of the right of a federal inmate to complete his university degree online.

In the context of working on claims of wrongful convictions, such as Romeo Phillion, Professor Young has continued to use litigation as a tool for political change. More specifically, he has brought a number of applications to establish a constitutional duty to preserve evidence and to disclose evidence in a post-conviction setting.^[21] As of June 2018, the application to establish a duty to preserve evidence was dismissed, but the application to establish a duty to disclose is still before the courts.^[22]

In 2015, Professor Young was appointed amicus curiae by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal to assist incarcerated individual who wished to challenge the terms and conditions of their imprisonment through the writ of habeas corpus.^[23] This case resulted in an expansion of the jurisdictional scope of the writ.

v) Challenging State Officials

In an effort to increase the accountability of public officials, Professor Young has assisted numerous individuals who sought to launch complaints against police officers, prosecutors and their own lawyers.^[24] In particular, he has on three occasions initiated complaints against police officers with respect to the manner in which the police investigated, or failed to investigate, the death of a family member.^[25] He has also assisted two self-represented individuals successfully sue the police for malicious prosecution.^[26]

vi) Victim Rights

Notwithstanding his institutional role as a defense lawyer, Professor Young has also been a champion of the rights of crime victims for more than 20 years. He has been the primary consultant for the federal Department of Justice on the issue of victims' rights since the 1990s, and has represented numerous victims' rights groups seeking legislative reform.^[27] He has also assisted numerous crime victims seeking information from police and prosecutors on the status of their cases, and has attended court as a support person for many victims. Moreover, in 1999, he commenced an application seeking to create rights and entitlement for crime victims under Section 7 of the Charter, but the application was not successful.^[28]