Author: Jennifer Koshan Page 1 of 40

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

Case and Bill Commented On: Egale Canada v Alberta, 2025 ABKB 394 (CanLII); Bill 9, Protecting Alberta’s Children Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, 2^nd Session, 31st Legislature

PDF Version: The Nuclear Option: An Update on Alberta’s Legislation Targeting Trans and Gender Diverse Youth

On November 18, 2025 the UCP government introduced Bill 9, which seeks to amend three statutes that were passed last year restricting the rights of trans and gender diverse youth. The Protecting Alberta’s Children Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 invokes s 33 of the Charter, such that if the Bill is passed, the three statutes will apply notwithstanding several Charter rights and freedoms, the Alberta Bill of Rights, RSA 2000, c A-14, and the Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c A-25.5. This is the second time s 33 has been used in recent weeks, with Bill 2, the Back to School Act, SA 2025, c B?0.5, invoking s 33 to end the teachers’ strike and impose a contract on them in late October (see an ABlawg post on Bill 2 by Shaun Fluker et al here).

The Dissent in Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation: Failing to Accommodate Legal Pluralism

By Jennifer Koshan

On September 24, 2025

In Aboriginal, Constitutional, Indigenous

By: Jennifer Koshan, Robert Hamilton, and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

Cases Commented On: Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, 2024 SCC 10 (CanLII); Houle v Swan River First Nation, 2025 FC 267 (CanLII); Donald-Potskin v Sawridge First Nation, 2025 FC 648 (CanLII); Cunningham v Sucker Creek First Nation 150A, 2025 FC 1174 (CanLII)

PDF Version: The Dissent in Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation: Failing to Accommodate Legal Pluralism

This is the fourth and final post in our series on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, 2024 SCC 10 (CanLII). Our last post examined the majority judgment of Justices Nicholas Kasirer and Mahmud Jamal (Richard Wagner CJ and Suzanne Cote J concurring) on the interplay between sections 15(1) and 25 of the Charter. This post focuses on the dissenting judgment of Justices Sheilah Martin and Michelle O’Bonsawin on the section 15/25 issues. As we discuss, the two opinions contrast significantly in the way they prioritize the protection of collective Indigenous rights and the claims based on individual Charter rights and freedoms. We describe and critique the dissent’s analysis and we return to the three recent decisions introduced in our third post to think through how the approach of Martin and O’Bonsawin JJ would have played out in those cases (see Houle v Swan River First Nation, 2025 FC 267 (CanLII); Donald-Potskin v Sawridge First Nation, 2025 FC 648 (CanLII); Cunningham v Sucker Creek First Nation 150A, 2025 FC 1174 (CanLII)).

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

By Jennifer Koshan

On December 13, 2024

In Constitutional, Youth and the Law

By: Jennifer Koshan

Commented On: Bills 26, 27, and 29 (Alberta, 31^st Legislature, 1^st 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.

Myths, Stereotypes, and Substantive Equality

By Jennifer Koshan

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.

Submission on Family Violence Law to the Ministers of Arts, Culture and Status of Women, Children and Family Services, and Justice

By Jennifer Koshan

On July 8, 2024

In Family, Law Reform

By: Jennifer Koshan, Ampee Minhas, Athina Pantazopoulos & Sasha Reid

Legislation Commented On: Family Law Act, SA 2003, c F-4.5; Protection Against Family Violence Act, RSA 2000, c P-27

PDF Version: Submission on Family Violence Law to the Ministers of Arts, Culture and Status of Women, Children and Family Services, and Justice

Authors’ Note:

This law reform submission was delivered to the Government of Alberta, Ministers of Arts, Culture and Status of Women, Children and Family Services, and Justice, on July 8, 2024. Below we provide the Introduction to the submission, a full version of which is available here.