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.

BC Court of Appeal Recognizes the Myth of False Allegations of Intimate Partner Violence

By: Deanne Sowter and Jennifer Koshan

Case Commented On: KMN v SZM, 2024 BCCA 70 (CanLII), overturning 2023 BCSC 940 (CanLII)

PDF Version: BC Court of Appeal Recognizes the Myth of False Allegations of Intimate Partner Violence

We have both written previously on myths and stereotypes about intimate partner violence (IPV), one of the most common of which is that women make false or exaggerated claims of violence to gain an advantage in family law disputes (see here and here). In KMN v SZM, 2024 BCCA 70 (CanLII), the British Columbia Court of Appeal (BCCA) recognized the existence of this myth and the need for courts to avoid making assumptions that perpetuate it, holding that it is erroneous to do so unless there is an evidentiary basis for a finding of false allegations. This judgment came just a week before the Supreme Court of Canada released a decision on rape myths and stereotypes, in which it reiterated its recognition of the myth of “false allegations of sexual assault based on ulterior motives” (R v Kruk, 2024 SCC 7 (CanLII) at paras 35-37). The Supreme Court has not yet acknowledged the myth of false allegations of IPV in the family law context, however. Continue reading →

The Dickson Decision, UNDRIP, and the Federal UNDRIP Act

By: Nigel Bankes and Jennifer Koshan

Decision Commented On: Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, 2024 SCC 10 (CanLII)

PDF Version: The Dickson Decision, UNDRIP, and the Federal UNDRIP Act

This post is part of continuing ABlawg commentary on the approach of the courts to legislation implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). That commentary includes the decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Gitxaala v British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner), 2023 BCSC 1680 (CanLII) (ABlawg post here) and, most importantly, the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Reference re An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, 2024 SCC 5 (CanLII) (FNIM Reference) (ABlawg post here). This post is also the first of multiple posts that ABlawg anticipates on the Dickson decision. Continue reading →

Bill C-332 and the Criminalization of Coercive Control

By: Jennifer Koshan

Matter Commented On: Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Study of Bill C-332, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (controlling or coercive conduct), 44th Parliament, 1st session

PDF Version: Bill C-332 and the Criminalization of Coercive Control

On February 26, 2024, I appeared before the federal Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST), which is currently studying Bill C-332, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (controlling or coercive conduct).

After hearing from a number of witnesses speaking in favour of, and cautioning against, the criminalization of coercive control (as well as taking positions in between), JUST begins its clause-by-clause study of the Bill today. This post sets out my prepared five-minute opening remarks to JUST, which were followed by a question and answer period. A recording of the hearing is available here and the minutes are available here. In addition, I submitted a 10-page written brief to JUST with colleagues Janet Mosher, Shushanna Harris, and Wanda Wiegers that is available here. Continue reading →

Seismic Shift: The Notwithstanding Clause and Litigation on the Rights of Trans and Gender Diverse Youth

By: Jennifer Koshan

Case Commented On: UR Pride Centre for Sexuality and Gender Diversity v Government of Saskatchewan, 2024 SKKB 23 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Seismic Shift: The Notwithstanding Clause and Litigation on the Rights of Trans and Gender Diverse Youth

ABlawg has been following the introduction of government restrictions aimed at trans and gender diverse youth since last fall (see here and here). The latest development comes from Saskatchewan, where on February 16, the Court of King’s Bench permitted a constitutional challenge by UR Pride to proceed despite the government having invoked the notwithstanding clause in section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Continue reading →

What Does La Rose Tell Us About Climate Change Litigation in Canada?

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

Case Commented On: La Rose v Canada, 2023 FCA 241 (CanLII)

PDF Version: What Does La Rose Tell Us About Climate Change Litigation in Canada?

The last decade has seen an explosion of domestic climate change litigation around the world and an equally rich body of academic literature examining the case law from a variety of disciplinary perspectives. The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law maintains an excellent data base covering these developments. Important cases in other jurisdictions include the Urgenda decision (Urgenda v Netherlands (2019)) and Shell decision (Milieudefensie et al v Shell (2021)) in the Netherlands, and the 2021 decision of the German constitutional court (Neubauer et al v Germany). Australian environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) have been particularly active in bringing climate change issues before the courts, especially in the context of proposed natural gas and coal projects, most famously in the Sharma case (Sharma by her litigation representative Sister Marie Brigid Arthur v Minister for the Environment [2021] FCA 560, appeal allowed, [2022] FCAFC 35). Continue reading →