Author: Admin Page 6 of 19

Editor’s Note:

On May 28, 2018, regulatory law practitioners, representatives from regulatory bodies, and academics met in Calgary for the ninth annual Energy Regulatory Forum to discuss the state of regulatory law in Canada. These discussions focused on updates on recent judicial decisions, forecasting future solutions to Canadian regulatory law, and closed with updates from major energy agencies.

This will be the first of a series of blog posts, which will provide summaries of presentations from the forum, as summarized by student attendees.

******************************************************************************

Electricity Aspects of the Low Carbon Policy, Including Capacity Market Developments

PDF Version: Electricity Aspects of the Low Carbon Policy, Including Capacity Market Developments

Presenter: Miranda Keating Erickson (Vice-President, Markets, Alberta Electric System Operator)

Summarized by: Logan Lazurko (JD Candidate 2020, University of Calgary)

On May 28, 2018, Miranda Keating Erickson, Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) , presented at the annual Alberta Regulators Forum. Ms. Erickson spoke on AESO’s core responsibilities, Alberta’s evolving electricity industry, the renewable energy program, and the capacity market transition.

Supreme Court Sides with Law Societies in Trinity Western University Litigation

By Admin

On June 15, 2018

In Administrative Law, Constitutional, Ethics and the Legal Profession, Supreme Court of Canada

This morning the Supreme Court of Canada released its decisions in Law Society of British Columbia v. Trinity Western University, 2018 SCC 32 (CanLII) and Trinity Western University v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2018 SCC 33 (CanLII). A majority of the Court upheld the decisions of the Law Societies of British Columbia and Upper Canada to deny accreditation to or approval of Trinity Western University (TWU) law school. For readers wanting more context for the Supreme Court decisions, please see previous ABlawg posts on TWU here, and watch for analysis of the decisions on ABlawg in the coming days.

A Superior Court’s Inherent Jurisdiction to Infringe the Charter Right to a Jury Trial?

By Admin

On June 8, 2018

In Criminal, Human Rights

By: Admin

PDF Version: A Superior Court’s Inherent Jurisdiction to Infringe the Charter Right to a Jury Trial?

Case Commented On: R v Boisjoli, 2018 ABQB 410 (CanLII)

The decision of Justice Eldon J. Simpson in R v Boisjoli is unusual. On April 5, 2018, the Crown and the accused, Mr. Boisjoli, appeared before Justice Simpson to select jurors for a trial scheduled for the week of April 9. The charge (or one of the charges) was one of intimidation of a justice system participant, contrary to section 423.1 of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46. However, no jury was selected on April 5. Instead, Justice Simpson, by his own motion and under the claimed authority of the court’s inherent jurisdiction, ordered that Mr. Boisjoli’s trial go ahead as a trial by judge alone. Justice Simpson’s order was made because of the anticipated behavior of Mr. Boisjoli, i.e. that he intended to “artificially frustrate the jury selection process” (at para 24) and “disrupt and sabotage” the jury trial (at para 37). There was only a brief mention of Mr. Boisjoli’s Charter right to a trial by jury, and no Charter analysis. Instead, Justice Simpson relied upon an analogy to a section in the Criminal Code that equated an accused’s non-appearance with a waiver of a jury trial.

Proposed Security of Canada Information Sharing Act Amendments

By Admin

On April 23, 2018

In Terrorism and Security

By: Ben Allison, Lindsay Kvellestad, and Wajeeha Sattar

PDF Version: Proposed Security of Canada Information Sharing Act Amendments

Policy Commented On: Bill C-59, An Act Respecting National Security Matters

Executive Summary

On August 1^st, 2015, the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act, SC 2015, c 20 (SCISA) came into force by Bill C-51, 2nd Sess, 41st Parl, 2015 (assented to 18 June 2015). SCISA gave Government of Canada Institutions the power to share information in their possession with listed receiving institutions. Bill C-59, An Act Respecting National Security, 1st Sess, 42nd Parl, 2017 (first reading 20 June 2017) is currently in Committee (SECU). Among a host of other national security changes, this Bill proposes to make amendments to SCISA, which will become the Security of Canada Information Disclosure Act (SCIDA), Bill C-59, s 114. Experts in the field of national security law in Canada have pointed to weaknesses that are not being addressed in the SCISA (see Craig Forcese and Kent Roach, A report card on the national security bill). The majority of the criticisms that are associated with Bill C-59 and SCISA/SCIDA in particular are the threshold for sharing information, the overbreadth of the exception, circularity, and a lack of review. This post does not intend to canvass the issues afresh. Rather, our focus is on novel problems with the SCISA and the proposed amendments in Bill C-59 that have largely gone unaddressed. Beyond the existing critiques, the proposed amendments in Bill C-59 still do not address significant problems. We discuss some of these problems in three parts. Part I argues that treating all types of information as the same, as the SCISA does, is problematic. Part II addresses concerns related to disclosing institutions and how they function with regard to information sharing. Similar areas of concern are mentioned in Part III relating to recipient institutions. Each part of this post includes not only critiques but also proposed solutions to the various problems surveyed.

Letter of Support

By Admin

On January 12, 2018

In Legal Education

PDF Version: Letter of Support

Editor’s note

This letter of support is endorsed by concerned faculty members at the University of Calgary Faculty of Law.

Letter of Support

As professors at the University of Calgary Faculty of Law we are concerned regarding the recent incident that occurred in one of our classes. A sitting judge of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench and our then Judge in Residence, Justice Kristine Eidsvik, made comments to our second-year students that reflected racist myths and stereotypes about people, and particularly men, of colour.

Justice Eidsvik’s remarks are now being considered by the Canadian Judicial Council. We appreciate that further facts may to come to light through that process, and that it will serve to identify the appropriate response to Justice Eidsvik’s comments in relation to ensuring public respect for the administration of justice. We also note that Justice Eidsvik has resigned her position as Judge in Residence.

Nonetheless, over the past week we have assessed how best to respond to Justice Eidsvik’s reported remarks, and have reflected on our responsibilities as professors in light of what occurred in one of our classrooms.

Based on that assessment and reflection, as faculty members we believe it is important to emphasize the following:

Racist attitudes, including explicit and implicit bias, are an ongoing problem in our legal system.
Every actor in the legal system has a responsibility to work positively to redress racism, and to improve the justice and fairness of the law and how it is applied.
Judges bear a particular responsibility to ensure that they make decisions free of bias and in accordance with the values and principles enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the right to equality.
Legal educators are responsible to ensure that law school admissions and classrooms redress rather than reinforce inequality.
The judiciary, the legal profession and the legal academy ought to reflect and respect race, class and other forms of diversity.

We note Justice Eidsvik’s apology for her comments, but believe it essential to identify her initial remarks as categorically inconsistent with our core values, both institutionally and personally, as lawyers and legal educators. We express support for our students and colleagues who are personally impacted by the comments and thank those who came forward to express their concerns. We welcome dialogue with the students as we move forward.

As legal educators we are committed to ensuring that our classrooms reflect and reinforce equality as a core legal, constitutional and professional value. We are grateful for the steps taken by the two professors in this course, both of whom are new to the University of Calgary, to address this challenging situation swiftly and empathetically.

As concerned faculty members, we commit to taking our own steps to learn from this. We recommend that the Faculty include seminars on equality and bias in our annual teaching workshops, including strategies for dealing with racist and other comments reflective of inequality in the classroom.

Regardless of the outcome of the Canadian Judicial Council complaint, we encourage the Alberta Courts, along with the National Judicial Institute, to adopt educational initiatives to ensure that judges understand the problems of inequality and racialization in our legal system, and the central role of judges in redressing rather than reinforcing those inequalities.

This letter is written in support of our students and colleagues and we will not be speaking to the media about it.

To subscribe to ABlawg by email or RSS feed, please go to http://ablawg.ca