Author: Linda McKay-Panos Page 11 of 23

Linda McKay-Panos is the Executive Director of the Alberta Civil
Liberties Research Centre. She taught Language Arts and Social Studies with the Calgary Board of Education for 7 years before returning to university to obtain a Law Degree. She practiced law for a time, before joining the Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre in 1992 as a Research Associate. Linda is a sessional instructor in the Faculties of Communication and Culture and Law at the University of Calgary. Linda received her Bachelor of Education, Bachelor of Laws and Master of Laws degrees from the University of Calgary. Linda is the President of the Alberta Association for Multicultural Education and the Past President of the Public Legal Education Network of Alberta. Linda is the author of several publications dealing with civil liberties, access to information, human rights, discrimination, equality and related topics. Linda received the 2001 Suzanne Mah Award and an Alberta Centennial Medal in 2005 for her work in human rights in Alberta.

Case considered: R v Whatcott, 2012 ABQB 231

Yet another case has arisen that raises the issues of whether and when the Charter might apply on a university campus. William Whatcott (Whatcott), an anti-abortion and anti-gay activist, is not merely before the Supreme Court of Canada for a human rights matter involving anti-gay leaflets (see: Appeal heard on October 12, 2011); he has also engaged the Alberta courts and the University of Calgary. In 2005, Whatcott was prohibited from campus under the Alberta Trespass to Premises Act, RSA 2000, c T-7 (TPA). On July 25, 2008, Whatcott was arrested by campus security for trespassing, when he was posting anti-gay literature on campus. Calgary Police then charged Whatcott with an offence under the TPA. After a trial, the Provincial Court of Alberta decided that Whatcott’s Charter right to freedom of expression (under section 2(b)) had been violated. The Trial Judge (Judge Bascom) then stayed the proceedings (see 2011 ABPC 336). The Crown appealed that decision to the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench.

One Person, Two Universities, Three Alberta Cases

By Linda McKay-Panos

On May 15, 2012

In Administrative Law, Privacy

PDF version: One Person, Two Universities, Three Alberta Cases

Cases Considered: Oleynik v University of Calgary, 2012 ABQB 189 (Case #1); University of Alberta v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2012 ABQB 247 (Case #2); Association of Academic Staff of the University of Alberta v University of Alberta, 2012 ABQB 248 (Case #3)

These three cases involve personal privacy issues in the process of applying for a research grant from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). Two of the cases suggest that the access to information requests to Universities were being used to obtain evidence to support allegations of bias in decision-making.

Alberta Human Rights Tribunal Distinguishes Lockerbie and Moves Away From Constrictive Definition of Employment

By Linda McKay-Panos

On April 1, 2012

In Human Rights, Labour/Employment

PDF version: Alberta Human Rights Tribunal Distinguishes Lockerbie and Moves Away From Constrictive Definition of Employment

Decision considered: Pelley and Albers v Northern Gateway Regional School Division, 2012 AHRC 2 (Pelly and Albers)

Once again the issue of who can be considered an employer under the Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000 c A-25.5 (“AHRA”) has arisen. In a previous blog, (see here), I discussed the potentially negative implications of the Lockerbie & Hole Industrial Inc. v Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission, Director), 2011 ABCA 3 decision (“Lockerbie“).

Doreen Pelley and Marlene Albers each filed complaints with the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) alleging age discrimination under AHRA section 7 (1)(a) and (b) against both Northern Gateway Regional School Division (“School Division”) and either First Student Canada or 1098754 Alberta Ltd. At issue was the School Division’s policy that persons 65 years of age or older shall not be permitted to drive students.

Alberta Court of Appeal Declines to Appoint Counsel in Extradition of Jorge Sosa

By Linda McKay-Panos

On March 21, 2012

In Criminal, Human Rights, International Law

Decision considered: United States of America v Sosa, 2012 ABCA 56

Emma McAuliffe wrote a blog expressing reasons why Jorge Sosa should face war crimes charges in Canada before being extradited to the United States (see: Why Canada should Address Jorge Vinicio Orantes Sosa’s Alleged War Crimes before Extraditing Him to the U.S. ) Nevertheless, Chief Justice Wittmann granted an extradition order on September 2, 2011. Sosa filed a Notice of Appeal on October 19, 2011, and a second Notice of Appeal on January 24, 2012. Since the appeal period allowed for under the Extradition Act, SC 1999, C 18 (s 50) would have expired on October 2, 2011, Sosa asked for an extension of time to proceed with the appeal. Alberta caselaw indicates that Sosa must demonstrate that he has a reasonable chance of success on the appeal before the extension will be granted (see: R v Truong, 2007 ABCA 127).

British Columbia Supreme Court Releases Reference Decision on Polygamy – One Alberta Connection

By Linda McKay-Panos

On February 15, 2012

In Constitutional, Criminal, Family

By: Linda McKay-Panos

PDF Version: British Columbia Supreme Court Releases Reference Decision on Polygamy – One Alberta Connection

Case Commented On: Reference re: Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada, 2011 BCSC 1588

In 2005, Brian Seaman, Melissa Luhtanen and I, on behalf of the Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre (ACLRC), were engaged by Status of Women Canada to research and comment on specific issues with regard to Criminal Code section 293 (anti-polygamy provision). Our conclusions may have been surprising to some people because it appeared that we erred on the side of equality at the expense of civil liberties. However, the recent British Columbia Supreme Court (BCSC) decision, at least temporarily, as it may be overruled on appeal, seems to have vindicated our position. Looking at the list of intervenors (11 of them) and the length of the judgment itself, it seems that the Court dealt with the issues in a comprehensive manner.

Author: Linda McKay-Panos Page 11 of 23

University Campus is not Charter-Free

One Person, Two Universities, Three Alberta Cases

Alberta Human Rights Tribunal Distinguishes Lockerbie and Moves Away From Constrictive Definition of Employment

Alberta Court of Appeal Declines to Appoint Counsel in Extradition of Jorge Sosa

British Columbia Supreme Court Releases Reference Decision on Polygamy – One Alberta Connection