Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2012 ONCA ... - York University

Page: 57findings of fact. The characterization is important because findings of social orlegislative fact are not accorded the strong appellate deference given toadjudicative fact-finding: RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General),[1995] 3 S.C.R. 199, at pp. 285-289, per LaForest J., dissenting, but not on thispoint; Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 33, [2004] 1.S.C.R. 827,at paras. 93-99.[128] Adjudicative facts, the standard fare of litigation, speak to the who, what,where, when and why of a specific event or claim.Social facts describeconditions, causes or relationships at a societal rather than an individual level.Thus, a finding that an individual is a racist is an adjudicative fact, while a findingthat society is racist is a social fact. Unlike adjudicative facts, social facts are notreadily provable through the firsthand testimony of lay witnesses. Social factsare often proven through an amalgam of testimony of the experiences ofindividuals, and the opinions of experts. Legislative facts, cousins of social facts,are facts that speak to the meaning or effect of legislation. These facts are oftenestablished through Parliamentary debates and government reports of varioustypes: see R. v. Spence, 2005 SCC 71, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 458, at paras. 56-59.[129] We accept the submission that the application judge‟s findings underlyingher conclusion that the challenged provisions interfere with the security of theperson are findings in the nature of social and legislative facts. This was notlitigation about whether a particular person‟s security of the person was infringed