Author Archives: Jennifer Koshan

About Jennifer Koshan

B.Sc., LL.B (Calgary), LL.M. (British Columbia). Professor. Member of the Alberta Bar. Please click here for more information.

The Quebec Secession Reference and the Proposed Charter of Quebec Values

PDF Version: The Quebec Secession Reference and the Proposed Charter of Quebec Values

Case/Policy considered: Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217; Charter of Quebec Values

It’s as if Pauline Marois and her government knew we would be discussing the Quebec Secession Reference case in constitutional law this week when they finally released their plans for a Charter of Quebec Values on September 10. The Quebec Secession Reference case famously decided that Quebec did not have the unilateral right to secede from Canada under domestic or international law. It is also taught by many constitutional law professors as our first case, given its important pronouncements on sources of constitutional law and Canada’s constitutional history and values. The constitutional values – actually unwritten principles of constitutional law – that the Supreme Court found to be relevant in the context of Quebec secession were federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and respect for minorities (at para 32). The Court’s elaboration on these principles takes on a new relevance in light of Quebec’s proposed Charter.

Continue reading →

Domestic Violence Cases: A Summer Snapshot

PDF Version: Domestic Violence Cases: A Summer Snapshot

Cases commented on: R v Hooker, 2013 ABQB 271; R v Bandesha, 2013 ABCA 255

There were a number of reported Alberta cases involving domestic violence this summer. The decisions collectively illustrate the broad range of issues that can arise in domestic violence cases – for example, constitutional, criminal and family law issues – some of which may now be heard by specialized domestic violence courts. They also show a range of sensitivities on the part of judges to the realities of domestic violence. In this post I will comment on two of the cases, both arising in the criminal context, and in a subsequent post I will comment on two cases arising in the family law context.

Continue reading →

Safe Sites for Illegal Drug Consumption: In Need of Insight

PDF version: Safe Sites for Illegal Drug Consumption: In Need of Insight

Legislation / case commented on: Bill C-65, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, First Session, Forty-first Parliament, 60-61-62 Elizabeth II, 2011-2012-2013 (“Respect for Communities Act”); Canada (AG) v PHS Community Services Society, 2011 SCC 44.

Last week I attended the Law on the Edge conference in Vancouver, which Jonnette Watson Hamilton recently blogged on. One of the highlights for me was a field trip led by UBC Professor Margot Young to visit Insite, Vancouver’s safe injection site for intravenous drug users. Insite was the subject of constitutional litigation that went to the Supreme Court of Canada (see Canada (AG) v PHS Community Services Society and previous ABlawg posts on the case here and here). In brief, the Supreme Court ordered the federal Minister of Health to extend Insite’s exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC 1996, c 19 (CDSA), on the basis that the refusal to do so violated Insite users’ section 7 Charter rights to life, liberty and security of the person in a manner that was arbitrary and grossly disproportionate in light of the government’s aims. In June 2013, the federal government introduced amendments to the CDSA in the so-called “Respect for Communities Act” that would make it more difficult for other communities to open safe injection sites. What does the Insite experience suggest in terms of the impact these amendments might have on other efforts to establish safe injection sites in Canada?

Continue reading →

The Alberta Court of Appeal and the Test for Discrimination

PDF version: The Alberta Court of Appeal and the Test for Discrimination

Case commented on: Lethbridge Regional Police Service v Lethbridge Police Association, 2013 ABCA 47, leave to appeal denied, June 20, 2013, Supreme Court of Canada.

A couple of months ago I posted a blog on the uncertainty over the test for discrimination under human rights legislation, particularly in Alberta (see here). In the Supreme Court’s most recent human rights decision, Moore v British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61, the Court appeared to return to the traditional prima facie approach to discrimination first set out in Ontario Human Rights Commission and O’Malley v Simpsons-Sears, [1985] 2 SCR 536. Yet in Lethbridge Regional Police Service v Lethbridge Police Association, the Alberta Court of Appeal declined to cite Moore, and applied a restrictive test for discrimination in the employment context. This approach operated to the detriment of Lester, a probationary police constable whose claim of discrimination was dismissed because the Lethbridge Regional Police Service appeared to have at least some non-discriminatory reasons for not extending his contract, and because there was found to be no evidence of stereotyping or egregious discrimination (see para 37). The Court of Appeal took a similarly restrictive approach in Wright v College and Association of Registered Nurses of Alberta (Appeals Committee), 2012 ABCA 267, in which the Supreme Court declined to grant leave to appeal (see 2013 CanLII 15573 (SCC)).  On June 20, 2013, the SCC also denied leave to appeal in the Lethbridge Police Association case. As is the usual practice, the panel (Justices LeBel, Karakatsanis and Wagner) did not provide reasons for decision. This is an unfortunate development given the need for clarity over the test for discrimination. Until the Supreme Court decides to tackle that issue head on, it is to be hoped that the Court of Appeal will follow the Supreme Court’s direction in Moore, and cease its inclination to impose onerous burdens on human rights claimants.

160 Girls Litigation Successful in Kenya

PDF version: 160 Girls Litigation Successful in Kenya

Case commented on: C.K. et al v The Commissioner of Police et al, Petition No. 8 of 2012, High Court of Kenya (May 27, 2013)

On May 27, 2013, J.A. Makau of the High Court of Kenya granted judgment for the petitioners in a constitutional claim challenging the failure of the Kenyan police to conduct prompt, effective, proper and professional investigations into complaints of sexual abuse against girls (known as “defilement” under Kenyan law). I have had the privilege of working as part of the volunteer legal team for this case over the last couple of years, under the auspices of a small but mighty NGO called the Equality Effect.  The Equality Effect (E2) consists of lawyers, academics, and activists primarily from Canada, Ghana, Kenya and Malawi who use domestic and international human rights laws to challenge women’s and girls’ inequality, including gender-based violence.  This post will describe the claim and the process leading to it, and the decision and its implications in Kenya and beyond.

Continue reading →