Author: Alexandra Heine

Alexandra Heine received her Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from the University of Calgary in 2019. While completing her J.D., Alexandra was a full-time student caseworker, group leader and upper year mentor at Student Legal Assistance, a research assistant for Professor Howard Kislowicz, and a mooter for the Laskin Moot and Gale Cup Moot competitions. She recently completed a judicial law clerkship at the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench and is currently finishing her articling term at a national firm. Her primary areas of interest are criminal and constitutional law, with a specific focus on the law of evidence in the criminal law context, criminal negligence-based offences, and language rights.

The views in all ABlawg posts published by this author are entirely those of the author and not those of any of the author's employers.

Bill 1: Criminalizing Protests and Encroaching on Aboriginal and Treaty Rights

By Alexandra Heine

On June 17, 2020

In Aboriginal, Constitutional

By: Alexandra Heine and Kelly Twa

PDF Version: Bill 1: Criminalizing Protests and Encroaching on Aboriginal and Treaty Rights

Bill Commented On: Bill 1, the Critical Infrastructure Defence Act, 2nd Sess, 30th Leg, Alberta, 2020

This is the second part of a two-part series on Bill 1, the Critical Infrastructure Defence Act, 2nd Sess, 30th Leg, Alberta, 2020. Professors Jennifer Koshan, Lisa Silver, and Jonnette Watson Hamilton authored the first post, Protests Matter: A Charter Critique of Alberta’s Bill 1, which explores Bill 1’s lack of compliance with sections 2(b), 2(c), 2(d), 7, and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The first post also offers an overview of Bill 1 and importantly, it offers examples of the type of activities that appear to contravene Bill 1:

A vigil for Regis Korchinski-Paquet is held in Olympic Plaza—a square in downtown Calgary—in conjunction with Black Lives Matters protests across the country. The vigil spills onto Stephen Avenue Mall, where bicycles are permitted.
Indigenous persons and their allies hold a protest against construction of a pipeline on-site in northern Alberta.
Workers rally in a parking lot outside a meat packing plant to bring attention to the gendered and racialized impact of the Alberta government’s response to COVID-19.
Persons with disabilities and their allies protest cuts to AISH on the sidewalk adjacent to the High Level Bridge in Edmonton.
LGBTQ2S+ groups hold a sit-in under a flagpole on the grounds of the Alberta Legislature after the Pride flag is taken down only one day into Pride month.

As noted in the first post, these peaceful protesters could be subject to immediate arrest by the police, increasing the potential for further conflict between law enforcement and the public.

This second post examines how Bill 1 treads on the federal government’s criminal law powers under section 91(27) of The Constitution Act, 1867 and provides commentary on how the Bill threatens Aboriginal rights under section 35 of The Constitution Act, 1982.

Resisting Assimilation: the Politique en matière de francophonie in Alberta, Bessette v British Columbia, and the Impact of Language Rights on Access to Justice

By Alexandra Heine

On November 19, 2018

In Access to Justice

By: Alexandra Heine

PDF Version: Resisting Assimilation: the Politique en matière de francophonie in Alberta, Bessette v British Columbia, and the Impact of Language Rights on Access to Justice

Cases Commented On: R v Bessette, 2015 BCPC 230; Bessette v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2016 BCSC 2416; Bessette v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2017 BCCA 264; Bessette v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2018 BCCA 59; Joseph Roy Éric Bessette v Attorney General of British Columbia, Supreme Court of Canada, Docket: 37790

In June 2017, the Government of Alberta unveiled the Politique en matière de francophonie (Politique en matière de francophonie, Alberta Government) in an attempt to recognize the importance of protecting French minority communities. The goal of this policy is to substantiate the re-emergence of Francophone communities in Alberta by improving the accessibility and quality of services in French. Amongst other things, the government stated that they would communicate more often in French and add the Franco-Albertan flag to the list of provincial emblems. The government has also indicated that they will consider making the policy into a law.

R v Keror: Police Duties, Accused Duties, and the Right to Counsel of Choice

By Alexandra Heine

On September 25, 2017

In Constitutional, Criminal

By: Alexandra Heine

PDF Version: R v Keror: Police Duties, Accused Duties, and the Right to Counsel of Choice

Case Commented On: R v Keror, 2017 ABCA 273 (CanLII)

Introduction

Mr. Keror was accused of shooting and killing Philip Anny on September 30, 2012. A witness identified the accused as the shooter. He was arrested at 8:15 pm on October 1, 2012 by a member of the Calgary Police tactical team. At trial, the accused made an application to enter into a voir dire. He submitted that his s 10(b) rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated. Justice E. A. Hughes of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench found no s 10(b) breach (see R v Keror, 2015 ABQB 382 (CanLII)). A jury convicted Mr. Keror of second-degree murder. The accused then appealed this decision on five grounds. This commentary will focus strictly on grounds one through three. The first ground is as follows: Did the trial judge err by failing to consider whether there was a contextual or temporal link between any delay in facilitating access to counsel and the appellant’s subsequent statement the next day? The second and third grounds of appeal are as follows: did the police violate section 10(b) when they interviewed the appellant before he spoke with his counsel of choice?

At the Alberta Court of Appeal, Justices Marina Paperny, Barbara Lea Veldhuis and Jo’Anne Strekaf held that the Calgary Police did not violate the appellant’s right to consult with counsel of choice. Effectively, the peace officers complied with their duties under section 10(b) of the Charter. The first three grounds of appeal were dismissed on that basis. This decision gives us a glimpse into the struggle that our court system faces when assessing whether or not a person’s section 10(b) rights have been violated.