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.

No Costs Awarded for Failure to Prosecute Aboriginal Fishing Rights Case

Cases Considered: R. v. Nest, 2008 ABQB 323

PDF Version: No Costs Awarded for Failure to Prosecute Aboriginal Fishing Rights Case

Donald Marshall, David Milgard, and Guy Paul Morin are the troika of wrongful conviction cases in Canada, bringing to mind overzealous prosecution of innocent persons and the compensation required to right those wrongs. But what about the opposite scenario, where the failure to prosecute is alleged to constitute a rights infringement deserving of compensation? This was the argument made by the claimants in a recent Alberta case.

Continue reading →

Funding Restored for Court Challenges Language Rights Programs

In 2 previous posts (see here and here) I discussed the application of Gilles Caron for an interim costs order to fund his language rights claim against the Alberta government. This application was required in large part because of the cancellation of the Court Challenges Program (CCP) by the Harper government in 2006. In a recent development described in an excellent post by Shelagh Day on rabble.ca the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne (FCFA) has settled its claim against the federal government for the cancellation of the CCP. Part of the settlement agreement includes the reinstatement of funding for minority language rights litigation. However, in spite of the fact that the FCFA’s claim was to restore funding for both the language rights and equality rights components of the CCP, the government only restored funding to the former. The FCFA’s victory is welcome, and may permit claims like that of Caron to proceed in the future without interim costs applications. However, there is a huge gap left by the continued inability of equality rights claimants to seek funding for their litigation. Will it take a costly lawsuit on the equality rights side to see funding restored?

Infidelity Does Not Necessarily Amount to Provocation

Cases Considered: R. v. Tran, 2008 ABCA 209

PDF Version: Infidelity Does Not Necessarily Amount to Provocation

Domestic violence remains a terrible problem in Canadian society, and Alberta has one of the highest rates in the country (Karen Mihorean, Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile 2005 (Ottawa: Minister of Industry, 2005) at 15). Over the past 30 years, legislators, courts and law enforcement officers have generally progressed from treating such violence as a private matter, to confirming that it is as serious as other violence, and finally, to considering the family context as an aggravating circumstance. When domestic violence leads to death, however, perpetrators can argue a provocation defence just as they could in any murder trial. If successfully argued, provocation will reduce a charge of murder to manslaughter. In its recent decision in R. v. Tran, the Alberta Court of Appeal held that infidelity will not necessarily lead to a successful provocation defence in such cases.

Continue reading →

Disinterment of RCMP Officer may proceed despite parents’ wishes

Cases Considered: Johnston v. Alberta (Vital Statistics), 2008 ABCA 188

PDF Version: Disinterment of RCMP Officer may proceed despite parents’ wishes

In a previous post, I reviewed a number of decisions of the Alberta courts relating to the disinterment of Constable Leo Johnston, one of four RCMP officers killed near Mayerthorpe, Alberta in March 2005. The Johnston case involves a public death, and an ensuing private dispute now playing itself out in a very public way.

Continue reading →

Leave to appeal refused by Supreme Court in Drug Testing Case

Cases Considered: Director of the Alberta Human Rights and Citzenship Commission, et al. v. Kellogg Brown & Root (Canada) Company, 2007 ABCA 426

In the May 29, 2008 version of his S.C.C. L@wletter Eugene Meehan reports that the Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed the application of the Director of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission for leave to appeal in the case of Kellogg Brown & Root (Canada) Company (at the time of writing the SCC’s decision on leave to appeal is not yet available on its website). For posts on the Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision in this case, see Linda McKay Panos, “Court of Appeal Sends Court of Queen’s Bench Decision to Rehab” and David Corry, “Drug Testing: A Wake-up Call to the Courts ”. Linda and David disagreed about the correctness of the Alberta Court of Appeal’s approach, which overturned the decision of Madam Justice Sheilah Martin and upheld the position of the employer. It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court will not take advantage of the opportunity to clarify the law in this area. This leaves it uncertain for employers, employees and human rights tribunals whether perceived addiction to alcohol and drugs is covered by human rights legislation, and in what circumstances employers are entitled to implement drug and alcohol testing policies without running afoul of human rights legislation.