Cases Considered: D.W.H. v. D.J.R., 2009 ABQB 438
PDF Version: Gay fathers not seen as a parental unit under the Family Law Act
The law is still unclear when dealing with gay and lesbian parental units. These families slip through the gaps in legislation and under the Family Law Act, S.A. 2003, c. F-4.5. This case demonstrates some of the legal gaps that affect children and their gay, lesbian and bisexual parents.
Legislation Considered: First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act, S.C. 2005, c.48
PDF Version: Preliminary thoughts on the First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act
The First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act, S.C. 2005, c.48 (“FNOGMMA“) came into force on April 1, 2006. However, to date no First Nations have elected to “opt into” the Act.
The Act has been promoted as a method whereby a First Nation can take control of its on-reserve oil and gas resources and thus enhance the economic rent from these resources. It is elective in that a First Nation must choose to bring itself under the FNOGMMA legislative regime before the statutory regime applies. The existing Indian Oil and Gas Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-7 will continue to apply to those First Nations that do not “opt into” the FNOGMMA. Left unstated is why Canada under the existing Indian Oil and Gas Act cannot similarly take advantage of “value-added” opportunities and similarly enhance the economic rent accruing to the beneficiary First Nation. (A new Indian Oil and Gas Act was passed on May 14, 2009, but will not be in force until the amendments to the Indian Oil and Gas Regulations, 1995 are complete.)
Case considered: Boissoin and the Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. v. Lund, currently before the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench
PDF version: Alberta’s Hate Speech Law Under Challenge
There has been much talk recently of whether hate speech laws are properly included in human rights legislation. When Alberta moved to amend its human rights legislation in 2009, some argued that section 3 of Alberta’s Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. H-14 (HRCMA), our hate speech law, should be amended or repealed altogether. A 2008 report by Richard Moon recommended that the analogous provision in the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.H-6 (CHRA), section 13, should be repealed and that the hate speech provisions of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, should be used instead. Most recently, in Warman v. Lemire, 2009 CHRT 26, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal held that section 13 of the CHRA violated freedom of expression as guaranteed by section 2(b) of the Charter, and could not be justified as a reasonable limit under section 1 of the Charter. The tribunal thus refused to apply section 13 and declined to grant a remedy against the respondent, Lemire, even though his actions met the definition of hate speech. These developments will all be significant in the case of Boissoin and the Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. v. Lund, where the appellant, along with interveners the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Constitution Foundation, are challenging the constitutionality of section 3 of the HRCMA before the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench.
PDF Version: R. v. Syncrude Canada: The Case of The 500 (or was that 1600) Dead Ducks
In a Provincial Court appearance on September 14, 2009, Syncrude Canada pled not guilty to charges laid by Alberta Environment and Environment Canada in relation to the toxic substances in its Aurora Mines tailing pond that resulted in the death of 1600 migratory birds in 2008 (the number of birds was initially thought to be 500, but was revised upwards to 1600 after further investigation). ABlawg has followed this regulatory saga from its inception in January 2009 (see previous posts by myself (R. v. Syncrude Canada: The Case of The 500 Dead Ducks and Environmental Private Prosecution Update: John Custer v. Syncrude Canada) and Jocelyn Stacey (Lame duck constitutional arguments: a new twist on Syncrude’s Tailings Pond Debacle).
Cases Considered: Bjelland v. The Queen, 2009 SCC 38
PDF Version: Supreme Court of Canada undermines Trial Judges’ discretion under Charter s. 24(1)
In Bjelland v. The Queen, 2009 SCC 38, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the question of whether faulty disclosure by the Crown could lead to the exclusion of the evidence concerned under s. 24(1) of the Charter. The majority, in a 4-3 decision, developed a test for the exclusion of evidence under s. 24(1) and applied it in a very restrictive way. This raises concerns about their respect for the discretion of trial judges as granted by s. 24(1) of the Charter.
