University of Calgary Faculty of Law ABLawg.ca logo over mountains

Must We Be Nice? Civility Rules and Law Society of Alberta v. Smith, 2025 ABLS 13

By: Fraser Gordon

Case Commented On: Law Society of Alberta v. Smith, 2025 ABLS 13 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Must We Be Nice? Civility Rules and Law Society of Alberta v. Smith, 2025 ABLS 13

Lawyers as advocates must be “courteous and civil and act in good faith to the tribunal and all persons with whom the lawyer has dealings” (Law Society of Alberta Code of Conduct, s 5.1-6); this duty in fact extends outside of the courtroom and applies to all persons “with whom the lawyer has dealings in the course of his or her practice” (Code of Conduct, s 7.2-1). What this means in practice is notoriously hard to identify; the Law Society Appeal Panel, in a (173 paragraph) decision considered when to sanction a lawyer for incivility. In this blog, I want to consider the Law Society’s most recent attempt at this nettlesome question, and also and, more generally, whether this is a good use of the regulator’s resources.

Provincial Referendum Legislation, Citizen-Led Secession Proposals, and Non-Derogation Clauses

By: Nigel Bankes

Bill Commented On: Bill 54, Election Statutes Amendment Act

PDF Version: Provincial Referendum Legislation, Citizen-Led Secession Proposals, and Non-Derogation Clauses

In the dying hours of this last Legislative Session the Minister of Justice, Mickey Amery introduced a series of amendments (Amendment # A6, adopted May 14, 2025 and Hansard at 3494) to Bill 54, the Election Statutes Amendment Act. This is the Bill that will make it easier for parties to call for a citizen-led secession reference. One of the amendments related to proposed changes to the province’s Referendum Act, RSA 2000, c R-8.4. The amendment (the non-derogation clause or amendment) purports to clarify that:

Nothing in a referendum held under this Act is to be construed as abrogating or derogating from the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada that are recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Bill C-5: Move Fast and Make Things, or Move Fast and Break Things?

By: David V. Wright and Martin Olszynski

Bill Commented On: Bill C-5 – An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act

PDF Version: Bill C-5: Move Fast and Make Things, or Move Fast and Break Things?

On Friday, June 6th, the new Carney Government tabled Bill C-5, Part II of which consists of the Building Canada Act. This proposed legislation is intended to follow through on a promise to speed up resource development and streamline federal project approvals (see also the recent Speech from the Throne). Tabling of the Bill follows the recent First Ministers’ meeting, where there was discussion of potential major projects such as “highways, railways, ports, airports, oil pipelines, critical minerals, mines, nuclear facilities, and electricity transmission systems” (see federal Backgrounder here). The Bill enters today’s broader context of threats to Canada’s economic security and sovereignty due to developments south of the border such as tariffs and expressed imperialist ambitions, and the associated shockwaves rumbling through global economic and political orders.

“Get the province of Alberta in line”: Treaty Promises, Provincial Power, and the Role of Indigenous Nations in Discussions on Alberta Secession

By: Robert Hamilton

Matter Commented On: Alberta Separatism

PDF Version: “Get the province of Alberta in line”: Treaty Promises, Provincial Power, and the Role of Indigenous Nations in Discussions on Alberta Secession

With the Liberals forming a minority government in last month’s election, and a small but vocal contingent of Albertans seemingly enamoured with President Trump’s suggestion that Canada become a state, the possible secession of Alberta is in the news cycle again. In 2019, the possibility of western separation made headlines as Jack Mintz and others made the case for the benefits to Alberta (see here). Premier Danielle Smith has given oxygen to the renewed debate by introducing legislation that would lower the threshold for initiating provincial referenda. While she has denied supporting separation, her moves, including her participation at a pro-separation rally held at the Alberta legislature on May 3 and her statement that she will put the issue to a referendum if it gathers enough support, have energized the movement. This has drawn responses from Indigenous Nations across the province. Recently proposed amendments which would add a non-derogation clause purporting to protect treaty rights (discussed by Nigel Bankes in a forthcoming post) has done little to reduce opposition.

The Information Commissioner’s Report on the Government of Alberta’s War on the Public’s Right to Access Information

By: Drew Yewchuk

Matter Commented On: OIPC Investigation Report F2025-IR-01, Investigation into the Government of Alberta’s practices respecting access to information

PDF Version: The Information Commissioner’s Report on the Government of Alberta’s War on the Public’s Right to Access Information

On 8 May 2025, Alberta’s Information Commissioner (Commissioner) posted Investigation Report 2025-01 (Report 2025-01). Report 2025-01 is unlike typical Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) orders that make decisions about particular records requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSA 2000, c F-25 (FOIP). Instead, Report 2025-01 relates to how the 27 government departments that make up the Government of Alberta were handling records requests in general. Report 2025-01 concludes that the Alberta government had been applying incorrect interpretations of three sections of FOIP to improperly reject records requests (at 3).

Page 1 of 422

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén