Author: Jennifer Koshan Page 2 of 45

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

Encampments on Campus Part 2

By Jennifer Koshan

On June 28, 2024

In Protest

By: Jennifer Koshan and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

Document Commented On: University of Calgary, Temporary structures and overnight protests, 2024-UC-003-A

PDF Version: Encampments on Campus Part 2

Last week we posted commentary about the University of Calgary’s May 9, 2024 response to an on-campus encampment (see “Encampments on Campus: Trespass, Universities, and the Charter”). An ABlawg reader subsequently sent us a copy of a University document entitled “Temporary structures and overnight protests” (Direction), which was apparently handed out to protestors on May 9. The document does not seem to be available on the University’s Policies and Procedures webpage, which is why we are calling it a direction rather than a policy. And while the document does not have “direction” in its title, it internally references itself as a “direction”, as we describe below.

Encampments on Campus: Trespass, Universities, and the Charter

By Jennifer Koshan

On June 21, 2024

In Constitutional, Protest

By: Jennifer Koshan and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

Matter Commented On: University of Calgary and Calgary Police Service Response to an On Campus Encampment on May 9, 2024

PDF Version: Encampments on Campus: Trespass, Universities, and the Charter

Campus encampments have proliferated this spring, demanding that universities divest from funds supporting Israel’s military operations in Gaza. In Alberta, the University of Calgary called in the police to dismantle a student encampment in the University quad on May 9, 2024 less than 24 hours after it went up, and similar action followed at the University of Alberta two days later. Concerns were raised about the use of force by the universities and police (see e.g., a letter from law professors here and from a former justice of the Alberta Court of Appeal here). The universities defended their actions on the basis that they had properly invoked their powers under trespass law and university policies. According to a message to the campus community from University of Calgary President Ed McCauley on May 10, 2024:

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

By Jennifer Koshan

On April 22, 2024

In Uncategorized

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.

The Dickson Decision, UNDRIP, and the Federal UNDRIP Act

By Jennifer Koshan

On April 18, 2024

In Aboriginal, Constitutional, Indigenous

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.

Bill C-332 and the Criminalization of Coercive Control

By Jennifer Koshan

On March 18, 2024

In Criminal, Law Reform

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.