Monthly Archives: December 2010

Sliding Down the Slippery Slope

PDF version: Sliding Down the Slippery Slope

Case considered: R. v. Loewen, 2010 ABCA 255

In the area of national security, the years since the attacks of September 11, 2001, have been characterized by an increased dominance of state power in terms of investigation, interrogation, and detention powers, often at the expense of individual liberties. This dominance has become entrenched in some respects in Canada, as well as in a number of other democratic nations, and in many ways has become so familiar that it arguably represents a new normal, rather than an extraordinary situation.

It is my belief that, while this shift has attracted most attention in the national security arena, and is primarily advanced in that arena, the increasing acceptance that individual rights must give way to state security interests sets the stage for the proverbial slippery slope, lending credibility to arguments for the erosions of individual rights in more traditional criminal matters as well. As an example, the increasing tendency of national governments to allow for warrantless searches in cases in which terrorism is alleged may arguably have served as an undercurrent for the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Gomboc, 2010 SCC 55 (overturning a ruling by the Alberta Court of Appeal and upholding a warrantless request by Calgary police to an electrical company to install a recording device, designed to measure electrical usage, to determine whether the person under investigation was growing marijuana).

Continue reading →

Accommodation for Family Status Required by Federal Human Rights Tribunal for Three Alberta Women

PDF version: Accommodation for Family Status Required by Federal Human Rights Tribunal for Three Alberta Women 

 Cases considered: Cindy Richards v Canadian National Railway, 2010 CHRT 24; Kasha Whyte v Canadian National Railway, 2010 CHRT 22; Denise Seeley v Canadian National Railway, 2010 CHRT 23

Family status was added in 1996 as a protected ground under Alberta’s human rights legislation (currently the Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c A-25.5, (AHRA)). Under the AHRA, family status is defined as: “the status of being related to another person by blood, marriage or adoption” (section 44(1)(f)). Family status is also a protected ground in several other jurisdictions, including federally. Three recent and related decisions of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal indicate that under the ground of family status, employers will be required to accommodate parental responsibilities.

Continue reading →

Using water reservations to protect the aesthetic values associated with water courses: a note on the Spray River (Banff)

 PDF version: Using water reservations to protect the aesthetic values associated with water courses: a note on the Spray River (Banff)

Documents commented on: Order in Council 546\49; South Saskatchewan Basin Water Allocation Regulation, Alta. Reg. 307/1991 (rescinded by Bow, Oldman and South Saskatchewan River Basin Water Allocation Order, Alta. Reg. 171/2007); Alberta Environment, TransAlta Utilities (TAU) licence for the Spray River development.

I have been doing some work on Crown water reservations over the last few months and in the course of that came across an example of what at first glance seemed to be the use of a water reservation to preserve the aesthetic qualities of a watercourse. The example also has an interesting constitutional twist that is worth reflecting on.

Continue reading →

CCS and CDM: The Eligibility of Carbon Capture and Storage Projects under the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol – the Cancun Meeting of the Conference of the Parties

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: CCS and CDM: The Eligibility of Carbon Capture and Storage Projects under the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol – the Cancun Meeting of the Conference of the Parties

Decision Commented On: UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, CoP\MoP Decision on “Carbon dioxide capture and storage in geological formations as clean development mechanism project activities”

The 16th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the 7th Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (KP) (CoP\MoP) concluded last week in Cancun. In the assessment of most observers this was a successful meeting but perhaps only because expectations were modest and anything seemed liked progress after the Copenhagen debacle of last year. But there is still much that remains to be done before countries can agree on a successor to the first commitment period of the KP which expires in 2012. Without such agreement the KP will simply die. Some, especially Europe, but also developing countries, want to see a second commitment period. But others, like Canada, point to the lack of inclusiveness of the KP (to say nothing of our own non-compliance which would result in a penalty on Canada during any second commitment period) and want to see an alternative to the KP that imposes emissions reduction obligations not only on the United States (not a party to the KP) but also on the so-called BRIC countries (Brazil, India, China) as well as other developing countries.

The Meeting did make progress on number of larger matters including REDD+ (reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation) and on the narrower issue of the eligibility of carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects under the clean development mechanism (CDM) of the KP. The purpose of this note is to provide an update on that debate.

Continue reading →

Interpreting Section 15(2) of the Charter: LEAF’s Intervention in Alberta (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) v Cunningham

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Interpreting Section 15(2) of the Charter: LEAF’s Intervention in Alberta (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) v Cunningham 

Cases Commented On: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development), et al. v Barbara Cunningham, et al. (Alberta) (Civil) (By Leave) Case number 33340, on appeal from Cunningham v Alberta (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development), 2009 ABCA 239

The Supreme Court of Canada is scheduled to hear the appeal of the Alberta government in Alberta (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) v Cunningham on Thursday, December 16, 2010. Cunningham will be the first case in which the Supreme Court considers the application of section 15(2) of the Charter since that Court gave independent meaning to section 15(2) in R v Kapp, 2008 SCC 41 and the first case in which the Court must consider the possible application of section 15(2) when the challenge is on the basis of under-inclusiveness. This comment is based on my experience serving on the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) case subcommittee in Cunningham, the factum filed by LEAF, and, to a much lesser extent and only to offer a contrast, the facta of the Appellants and the Attorney General of Ontario.

Continue reading →