Author: Jennifer Koshan Page 37 of 45

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

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Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. H-14 (HRCMA), our hate speech law, should be amended or repealed altogether.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that the analogous provision in the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.H-6 (CHRA), section 13, should be repealed and that the hate speech provisions of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, should be used instead.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.

Who is a Farm Worker? And Why Does It Matter?

By Jennifer Koshan

On August 31, 2009

In Constitutional, Labour/Employment

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: Who is a Farm Worker? And Why Does it Matter?

Case Commented On: R v Northern Forage Inc., 2009 ABQB 439

Alberta marked its 5th annual Farm Workers Day on August 20, 2009. As in previous years, the event provided an opportunity to advocate for equal protection for farm workers under Alberta’s labour and employment laws. Farm workers are currently excluded from the following laws: (1) protections regarding wages, overtime, holidays, and hours of work (see Employment Standards Code, R.S.A. 2000, c.E-9, section 2(4)); (2) mandatory coverage for workers compensation (see Workers’ Compensation Regulation, Alta. Reg. 325/2002, Schedule A); (3) work-related health and safety protections (see Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. O-2, section 1(s)); and (4) protections related to the unionization of workers (see Labour Relations Code, R.S.A. 2000, c. L-1, section 4(2)(e)). This makes Alberta one of the most lax provinces in Canada in terms of farm worker protection. Groups such as the Alberta Federation of Labour have called for an end to such exclusions, and a recent inquest into the fatality of agricultural worker Kevan Chandler led Judge Peter Barley to recommend that “paid employees on farms should be covered by the Occupational Health and Safety Act…” (at 7). Until the Alberta government amends the relevant legislation, however, questions may arise as to which workers are covered by the exclusions.

Supreme Court grants leave to appeal in Caron

By Jennifer Koshan

On August 27, 2009

In Access to Justice, Constitutional, Supreme Court of Canada

Case considered: R. v. Caron, 2009 ABCA 34, leave granted by SCC August 27, 2009

The Supreme Court of Canada has released its decision on the Alberta government’s leave to appeal application in R. v. Caron. Chief Justice McLachlin and Justices Abella and Rothstein granted the government’s leave application (without costs). As is typical in such matters, no reasons for decision were given. The case concerns an interim costs award that was granted to Caron to help fund his language rights challenge against Alberta legislation. As noted in a previous post, Caron was granted an interim costs award by Justice V.O. Ouellette of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench in October 2007. This award was upheld by the Alberta Court of Appeal in January 2009. In the meantime, Caron’s language rights challenge was successful after his Provincial Court trial, and this matter is now under appeal. Regardless of the outcome of the language rights challenge, the interim costs matter is a critical issue for access to justice. The Alberta Court of Appeal held that interim costs awards are available in quasi-criminal matters before provincial courts, and it is expected that this will be one of the government’s grounds for appeal. ABlawg will report on future developments in the case.

A Clarification of Evidentiary Requirements under the Protection Against Family Violence Act

By Jennifer Koshan

On August 21, 2009

In Civil Procedure, Evidence, Family, State Responses to Violence

Cases Considered: J.S. v. D.J.K., 2009 ABQB 426.

PDV Version: A Clarification of Evidentiary Requirements under the Protection Against Family Violence Act

Justice Donald Lee is a prolific author of judgments posted to the Alberta Courts website, and one of the only Alberta judges to post decisions made under the Protection Against Family Violence Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. P-27 (PAFVA) (see my earlier post Family Violence Cases in Alberta: A Snapshot). In one of his recent decisions, Justice Lee helpfully clarifies the evidentiary requirements for hearings to confirm emergency protection orders made under the PAFVA.

Security Trumps Freedom of Religion for Hutterite Drivers

By Jennifer Koshan

On August 10, 2009

In Constitutional, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: Security Trumps Freedom of Religion for Hutterite Drivers

Case Commented On: Alberta v Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37

The Supreme Court of Canada’s long awaited decision on whether Hutterites can be forced to have their photographs taken to obtain a driver’s licence was released on July 24, 2009. Reversing the judgments of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench and the Alberta Court of Appeal, a majority of the Supreme Court finds that the violation of freedom of religion caused by the photo requirement is justifiable under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This comment will argue that the majority’s decision, especially its failure to find a duty to accommodate on the part of the government, sets the protection of Charter rights back several years.