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.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s Pay Equity Decisions: A Call to Action for Alberta?

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: The Supreme Court of Canada’s Pay Equity Decisions: A Call to Action for Alberta?

Case Commented On: Quebec (Attorney General) v. Alliance du personnel professionnel et technique de la santé et des services sociaux, 2018 SCC 17 (CanLII); Centrale des syndicats du Québec v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2018 SCC 18 (CanLII)

Alberta does not have strong pay equity legislation. The Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c A-25.5, only guarantees equal pay to employees of both sexes for “the same or substantially similar work” for the same employer (s 6). Most other Canadian jurisdictions require employers to pay male and female employees equal pay for work of equal value in either human rights legislation (see e.g. Canadian Human Rights Act, RSC 1985, c H-6, s 11; Quebec’s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, CQLR, c C-12, s 19) and / or in stand alone pay equity legislation  (see e.g. Quebec’s Pay Equity Act, RSQ 1996, c 43, which applies to public and private employers, and Prince Edward Island’s Pay Equity Act, RSPEI 1988, c P-2, which applies to the public sector), or they have pay equity negotiating frameworks for some public sector employees (see here). Not unexpectedly, a 2016 Parkland Institute report written by Kathleen Lahey found that Alberta has the largest gender income gap in Canada at 41%, a gap which is often larger for women who are racialized (including Indigenous women) or have disabilities (at 21). The report recommended that Alberta design “robust” pay equity legislation “capable of significantly improving the economic status of women in Alberta” (at 2, 3).

Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions shed some light on whether Alberta is constitutionally obliged to enact more robust pay equity legislation (see Quebec (Attorney General) v. Alliance du personnel professionnel et technique de la santé et des services sociaux, 2018 SCC 17 (CanLII) (Alliance du personnel professionnel); Centrale des syndicats du Québec v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2018 SCC 18 (CanLII) (Centrale des syndicats)). This post will explore the implications of these decisions for the government’s pay equity obligations in Alberta. A future post with Jonnette Watson Hamilton will discuss in more detail the Court’s approach to equality rights under s 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in these cases.

Continue reading →

Bills C-68 and C-69 and the Consideration of Sex, Gender and Other Identity Factors

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: Bills C-68 and C-69 and the Consideration of Sex, Gender and Other Identity Factors

Legislation Commented On: An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence (Bill C-68) and An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (Bill C-69)

Over the past couple of months, several of my colleagues have posted comments on Bill C-68 and Bill C-69 (see here). My focus in this post is on one section that is common to Bills C-68 and C-69, which provides that when making a decision under the relevant Act, the decision-maker may or indeed must consider, among other things, “the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors” (see proposed section 2.5(i) of the Fisheries Act (“may”), section 22(1)(s) of the proposed Impact Assessment Act (“must”), and sections 183(2)(c), 262(2)(c) and 298(3)(c) of the proposed Canadian Energy Regulator Act (“must”)). The preamble of Bill C-69 also states that “the Government of Canada is committed to assessing how groups of women, men and gender-diverse people may experience policies, programs and projects and to taking actions that contribute to an inclusive and democratic society and allow all Canadians to participate fully in all spheres of their lives.”

Continue reading →

Interjurisdictional Enforcement of Protection Orders and the Possibility of Conflicts: The Need for Reform in Alberta

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: Interjurisdictional Enforcement of Protection Orders and the Possibility of Conflicts: The Need for Reform in Alberta

Case Commented On: DH v TH, 2018 ABQB 147 (CanLII)

Most provinces and territories in Canada now have legislation providing for emergency protection orders in cases of family violence. What we do not have in Alberta is a clear mechanism that allows for the recognition and enforcement of a protection order granted in another jurisdiction, nor a mechanism for dealing with conflicting orders.

In a recent Alberta case, DH v TH, 2018 ABQB 147 (CanLII), Justice Lee faced a situation where a woman had obtained an ex parte protection order against her husband in British Columbia under the Family Law Act, SBC 2011, c 25. At the time, the wife was living in BC and her husband was travelling back and forth between Edmonton and BC for work. After the order was granted, the husband moved to Edmonton to live with his sister. He was eventually served with the BC order in Alberta but missed the date for the hearing into the extension of that order, which resulted in a three-year BC protection order being granted against him. In the meantime, the wife received a transfer of employment to Edmonton and moved there to live with her parents. The husband apparently learned about the extension of the BC order when he went to an Edmonton daycare “where he believed the child of the marriage was” (at para 6). Later that day, he was served with an emergency protection order (EPO) obtained ex parte by his wife under Alberta’s Protection Against Family Violence Act, RSA 2000, c P-27 (PAFVA).

Continue reading →

No Discrimination Against Long-Term Care Residents in Elder Advocates of Alberta Case

By: Jennifer Koshan and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: No Discrimination Against Long-Term Care Residents in Elder Advocates of Alberta Case

Case Commented On: Elder Advocates of Alberta Society v Alberta, 2018 ABQB 37 (CanLII)

Our colleague Lorian Hardcastle recently posted a comment on the Elder Advocates of Alberta Society case, where a class of long-term care residents brought a claim against the Alberta government challenging its ability to charge accommodation fees in their facilities. As she noted, the plaintiffs were unsuccessful in their claims of unjust enrichment, negligence, and contract. The plaintiffs also argued that the accommodation charges were discriminatory on the basis of age and mental / physical disability, contrary to section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Justice June Ross also dismissed this argument, and her reasons on the section 15 claim will be the focus of this post. Continue reading →