University of Calgary Faculty of Law ABLawg.ca logo over mountains

Author: Jennifer Koshan Page 1 of 45

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

Thin Gruel: The Crisis Management Team Review

By

On February 18, 2025

In Protest

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton and Jennifer Koshan

Document commented on: Crisis Management Team Review, University of Calgary – Response to Protest Encampment: Final Report (November 4, 2024)

PDF Version: Thin Gruel: The Crisis Management Team Review

On November 4, 2024, consulting firm MNP released their Crisis Management Team (CMT) Review (CMT Review) of the University of Calgary’s response to the May 9, 2024 pro-Palestine encampment on campus. On December 2nd, the University’s Executive Leadership Team (ELT) added a few minor corrections to the review’s timeline and accepted all four recommendations in their Response to the CMT Review (ELT Response). On December 13th, Mark Herman, the Chair of the University’s Board of Governors (BOG), indicated the BOG was satisfied “there are no more material facts that we need to gather, and … management exercised sound judgment in a difficult, no-win situation (Mark Herman, “Review of university response to protest encampment concludes”, UCalgary News (13 December 2024)). Whether that is the end of the matter remains to be seen as both the University’s Students’ Union and its General Faculties Council have demanded an independent review of the University’s response to the encampment. And whether the CMT Review’s thin gruel will satisfy the appetite for a substantive review seems doubtful for several reasons.

Read More

Alberta’s Bills Targeting Gender Diverse Youth: Comparisons, Constitutional Issues, and Challenges  

By

On December 13, 2024

In Constitutional, Youth and the Law

By: Jennifer Koshan

Commented On: Bills 26, 27, and 29 (Alberta, 31st Legislature, 1st Session)

 PDF Version: Alberta’s Bills Targeting Gender Diverse Youth: Comparisons, Constitutional Issues, and Challenges

On December 3, 2024, the Alberta Legislature passed Bills 26, 27, and 29. These Bills place restrictions on gender diverse youth in the areas of health care, education, and sports respectively. This development means that Canada now has three provinces that have introduced legislation (in the case of Saskatchewan and Alberta) and/or policies (in the case of New Brunswick and Saskatchewan) targeting gender diverse youth. Only one of those provinces, Alberta, has included health care restrictions in its reforms. While these types of restrictions are not widespread in Canada, they deeply impact the individuals affected and their families.

Read More

Myths, Stereotypes, and Substantive Equality

By

On November 29, 2024

In Equality

By: Jennifer Koshan

Case Commented On: R v Kruk, 2024 SCC 7 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Myths, Stereotypes, and Substantive Equality

Canada’s legal frameworks related to substantive equality and sexual assault law have led to a robust body of jurisprudence on myths and stereotypes about sexual violence. The Supreme Court of Canada first used the language of myths and stereotypes in R v Lavallee, 1990 CanLII 95 (SCC), [1990] 1 SCR 852. In Lavallee, Justice Bertha Wilson repudiated the myth that real victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) will leave their abusers, noting that there are many reasons why women may be unable to do so. A year later, the Court identified several myths and stereotypes about sexual assault, including the “twin myths” that women with a sexual history are more likely to have consented to the alleged sexual activity or that they are less worthy of belief (see R v Seaboyer, 1991 CanLII 76 (SCC), [1991] 2 SCR 577; most recently see R v TWW, 2024 SCC 19 (CanLII)). In the decades since, numerous myths and stereotypes about gender-based violence (GBV) have been debunked by the Supreme Court (see here), and in cases where such misconceptions have infected trial decisions, errors of law have been found on appeal.

Read More

A Landmark Decision in Canadian Charter-based Climate Litigation: Mathur v Ontario, 2024 ONCA 762

By

On October 31, 2024

In Climate Change, Constitutional

By: Martin Olszynski, Jennifer Koshan, Nigel Bankes, and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

Case commented on: Mathur v Ontario, 2024 ONCA 762 (CanLII)

PDF Version: A Landmark Decision in Canadian Charter-based Climate Litigation: Mathur v Ontario, 2024 ONCA 762

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently released its decision in Mathur v Ontario, 2024 ONCA 762 (CanLII). ABlawg readers will know that this is one of three Charter-based climate lawsuits currently making their way through Canadian courts. The other two are La Rose v Canada, 2023 FCA 241 (CanLII), which involves a challenge to the federal government’s climate policies, and Dykstra et al v Saskatchewan Power Corporation, which involves a challenge to the Saskatchewan government’s and SaskPower’s decisions to expand gas-fired electricity generation (see our previous post on La Rose here). In this post, we contrast the trial and appellate reasons in Mathur (and where relevant, in La Rose FCA) and offer our commentary on several key issues in this litigation.

Read More

Let Them Eat Breakfast? Encampments on Campus Part 3

By

On July 17, 2024

In Constitutional, Injunctions, Protest

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton and Jennifer Koshan

Decision Commented On: University of Toronto (Governing Council) v Doe et al., 2024 ONSC 3755 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Let Them Eat Breakfast? Encampments on Campus Part 3

Stampede Week in Calgary just ended. Pancake breakfasts and other festivities went ahead despite a recent water emergency. At times like this, folks often point to Calgary’s can-do attitude. Indeed, some observers have suggested that this same can-do attitude prevailed, in a good way, when the University of Calgary (UCalgary) called in the Calgary Police Service (CPS) to enforce a trespass notice within less than 24 hours of an on-campus encampment being established on May 9, 2024 (see e.g., the comments of Councillor Terry Wong at the May Calgary Police Commission hearing at 46:13, 49:15). Who needs an expensive court-ordered injunction when the police are willing to heed the call of property owners? Well, the University of Toronto (U of T) decided that it did, seemingly because the Toronto police – unlike the CPS – refused to intervene without a court order in a 50+ day encampment on that campus (University of Toronto v Doe et al., 2024 ONSC 3755 (CanLII) at para 212). U of T got its interlocutory injunction on July 2 and then others, such as Memorial University (here), suggested that the U of T injunction decision supported their actions in removing protesters. We expect UCalgary will also rely on the U of T decision to justify its actions after the fact.

Read More

Page 1 of 45

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén