The NDP government likes to show that it's on the side of the little guy.

And the Legal Services Society of B.C. provides advice and legal representation to people with low incomes.

But both find themselves as defendants in a B.C. Supreme Court case, thanks to a lawsuit filed by the Single Mothers' Society of B.C. and the mother of an autistic child.

The court action came after the mother was twice denied legal aid.

The Single Mothers' Society of B.C. and the mother have alleged that she "was subject to threats of violence by her former partner". 

This, they claim, caused her psychological and physical harm.

As a result, the plaintiffs are alleging that the legal-aid scheme administered by the Legal Services Society and mostly funded by the provincial government infringed on the mother's charter right to life, liberty, and security of the person.

The plaintiffs also argue that the way the system is administered also infringes on the charter rights of others like her.

The Ministry of Attorney General, headed by David Eby, is opposing the claims of the single moms.

In a ruling on August 23, Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson dismissed an application by the B.C. government to strike the plaintiffs' notice of civil claim.

Hinkson wrote that he was "unable to conclude that the plaintiffs' claim is merely hypothetical, or that the impugned legal scheme has no connection to the harm alleged".

"Ultimately, I find the Province's submission too simplistic," he added.

Hinkson also denied the Legal Services Society's application to strike parts of the plaintiffs' pleadings.

In court filings, the Single Mothers' Society of B.C. and the mother also allege that the administration of the legal-aid scheme violates the mother's equality rights guaranteed under the charter, as well as section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The provincial government has denied that this section requires the B.C. government to provide state-funded legal counsel.

The province has also denied that there has been any charter violation.

"It contends that a family law proceeding is not government action that deprives a person of life, liberty or security of the person because such proceedings are not brought by the government, and are under the control of the litigants," Hinkson wrote in his ruling.

Meanwhile, the Legal Services Society maintains that its policies are not "law" and therefore they are not subject to the charter.

Moreover, it claims that even if the legal-aid scheme was determined to be "law", that wouldn't violate the Constitution Act, 1867.

These arguments are being vigorously challenged by the plaintiffs.

In the ruling, Hinkson refused to strike the claim regarding section 7 of the charter, which deals with life, liberty, and security of the person.

"While I agree that s. 7 does not currently impose positive obligations on the state to ensure that each person enjoys life, liberty or security of the person, given the comment of Chief Justice McLachlin in Gosselin that '[o]ne day s. 7 may be interpreted to include positive obligations', and the holdings in Adams, Bedford, and PHS, I am unable to say that the plaintiffs’ claim under s. 7 of the Charter, erring on the side of permitting a novel but arguable case to proceed to trial as the test requires, has no prospect of success," he wrote.

Hinkson also didn't strike the application to dismiss the section 15 argument concerning equality rights. In deciding this, he concluded that the defendants failed to meet the test outlined in a decision involving Imperial Tobacco.

Interestingly, one of the lawyers who's represented the plaintiffs is Kasari Govender, whom the B.C. legislature appointed in May as the province's new human rights commissioner.