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.

Safe Sites for Illegal Drug Consumption: In Need of Insight

PDF version: Safe Sites for Illegal Drug Consumption: In Need of Insight

Legislation / case commented on: Bill C-65, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, First Session, Forty-first Parliament, 60-61-62 Elizabeth II, 2011-2012-2013 (“Respect for Communities Act”); Canada (AG) v PHS Community Services Society, 2011 SCC 44.

Last week I attended the Law on the Edge conference in Vancouver, which Jonnette Watson Hamilton recently blogged on. One of the highlights for me was a field trip led by UBC Professor Margot Young to visit Insite, Vancouver’s safe injection site for intravenous drug users. Insite was the subject of constitutional litigation that went to the Supreme Court of Canada (see Canada (AG) v PHS Community Services Society and previous ABlawg posts on the case here and here). In brief, the Supreme Court ordered the federal Minister of Health to extend Insite’s exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC 1996, c 19 (CDSA), on the basis that the refusal to do so violated Insite users’ section 7 Charter rights to life, liberty and security of the person in a manner that was arbitrary and grossly disproportionate in light of the government’s aims. In June 2013, the federal government introduced amendments to the CDSA in the so-called “Respect for Communities Act” that would make it more difficult for other communities to open safe injection sites. What does the Insite experience suggest in terms of the impact these amendments might have on other efforts to establish safe injection sites in Canada?

Continue reading →

The Alberta Court of Appeal and the Test for Discrimination

PDF version: The Alberta Court of Appeal and the Test for Discrimination

Case commented on: Lethbridge Regional Police Service v Lethbridge Police Association, 2013 ABCA 47, leave to appeal denied, June 20, 2013, Supreme Court of Canada.

A couple of months ago I posted a blog on the uncertainty over the test for discrimination under human rights legislation, particularly in Alberta (see here). In the Supreme Court’s most recent human rights decision, Moore v British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61, the Court appeared to return to the traditional prima facie approach to discrimination first set out in Ontario Human Rights Commission and O’Malley v Simpsons-Sears, [1985] 2 SCR 536. Yet in Lethbridge Regional Police Service v Lethbridge Police Association, the Alberta Court of Appeal declined to cite Moore, and applied a restrictive test for discrimination in the employment context. This approach operated to the detriment of Lester, a probationary police constable whose claim of discrimination was dismissed because the Lethbridge Regional Police Service appeared to have at least some non-discriminatory reasons for not extending his contract, and because there was found to be no evidence of stereotyping or egregious discrimination (see para 37). The Court of Appeal took a similarly restrictive approach in Wright v College and Association of Registered Nurses of Alberta (Appeals Committee), 2012 ABCA 267, in which the Supreme Court declined to grant leave to appeal (see 2013 CanLII 15573 (SCC)).  On June 20, 2013, the SCC also denied leave to appeal in the Lethbridge Police Association case. As is the usual practice, the panel (Justices LeBel, Karakatsanis and Wagner) did not provide reasons for decision. This is an unfortunate development given the need for clarity over the test for discrimination. Until the Supreme Court decides to tackle that issue head on, it is to be hoped that the Court of Appeal will follow the Supreme Court’s direction in Moore, and cease its inclination to impose onerous burdens on human rights claimants.

160 Girls Litigation Successful in Kenya

PDF version: 160 Girls Litigation Successful in Kenya

Case commented on: C.K. et al v The Commissioner of Police et al, Petition No. 8 of 2012, High Court of Kenya (May 27, 2013)

On May 27, 2013, J.A. Makau of the High Court of Kenya granted judgment for the petitioners in a constitutional claim challenging the failure of the Kenyan police to conduct prompt, effective, proper and professional investigations into complaints of sexual abuse against girls (known as “defilement” under Kenyan law). I have had the privilege of working as part of the volunteer legal team for this case over the last couple of years, under the auspices of a small but mighty NGO called the Equality Effect.  The Equality Effect (E2) consists of lawyers, academics, and activists primarily from Canada, Ghana, Kenya and Malawi who use domestic and international human rights laws to challenge women’s and girls’ inequality, including gender-based violence.  This post will describe the claim and the process leading to it, and the decision and its implications in Kenya and beyond.

Continue reading →

Roundtable on Quebec v A: Searching for Clarity on Equality

By: Jennifer Koshan and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Roundtable on Quebec v A: Searching for Clarity on Equality

Case Commented On: Quebec (Attorney General) v A, 2013 SCC 5 (case summary available here)

On May 13, 2013, we led the Faculty of Law’s first roundtable discussion of the summer on the Supreme Court’s most recent equality rights decision, Quebec (Attorney General) v A. Participants included faculty members, researchers from the Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre and Alberta Law Reform Institute, and a number of JD and graduate students. Coincidentally, a virtual roundtable on the case is also ongoing at the moment, moderated by Sonia Lawrence, Director of Osgoode Hall’s Institute for Feminist Legal Studies (IFLS), with participation from law profs Robert Leckey, Hester Lessard, Bruce Ryder, and Margot Young. Many of the issues raised in the IFLS discussion were also debated in our roundtable.

Continue reading →

Under the Influence: The Alberta Court of Appeal and the Test for Discrimination

PDF version: Under the Influence: The Alberta Court of Appeal and the Test for Discrimination

Cases commented on: Wright v College and Association of Registered Nurses of Alberta (Appeals Committee), 2012 ABCA 267, leave to appeal denied, 2013 CanLII 15573 (SCC); Lethbridge Regional Police Service v Lethbridge Police Association, 2013 ABCA 47, leave to appeal application filed, April 15, 2013, SCC

On March 28, 2013 the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal in the case of Wright v College and Association of Registered Nurses of Alberta. Linda McKay-Panos blogged on that case here; it involves a claim of discrimination by two nurses with opioid addictions who were disciplined by their professional association after stealing narcotics from their employers. A majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal (per Slatter, JA, Ritter JA concurring) held that there was no discrimination and thus no duty to accommodate the nurses, using an approach that focused on stereotyping, prejudice and arbitrariness. Writing in dissent, Justice Berger undertook a traditional prima facie discrimination analysis and decided that the nurses had experienced discriminatory treatment. This split reflects a wider uncertainty about the appropriate test for discrimination under human rights law, and in particular the extent to which the approach to discrimination under section 15 of the Charter should have an influence. In the Supreme Court’s most recent human rights judgment, Moore v British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 (per Abella J), the Court declined to explicitly clarify the proper test, yet implicitly indicated that the traditional prima facie approach to discrimination is correct. Perhaps that is why the Court decided not to hear the appeal in Wright, which was decided before Moore.  A more recent Court of Appeal decision, Lethbridge Regional Police Service v Lethbridge Police Association, was decided after Moore, yet Justices Martin, Watson and Slatter maintained a focus on stereotyping as the defining feature of discrimination. Worse, Lethbridge Police seems to impose additional burdens on complainants in human rights cases. This post will critically consider the Alberta Court of Appeal’s approach to discrimination and argue that the Supreme Court should grant leave to appeal in Lethbridge Police to clarify the proper test.

Continue reading →