Author: Jennifer Koshan Page 27 of 41

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

The Alberta Election and Human Rights

By Jennifer Koshan

On April 9, 2012

In Human Rights

Document considered: Wildrose Platform on Justice, Policing and Human Rights

PDF Version: The Alberta Election and Human Rights

Several human rights issues have been raised in the Alberta election campaign to date. Perhaps most significantly, the Wildrose party’s platform on Justice, Policing and Human Rights proposes major changes to the Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c A-25.5 (AHRA), changes that are both substantive and procedural in nature. I will set out those proposed changes in this post, and raise some related concerns.

The Equality Effect: Recognizing 160 Girls on International Women’s Day

By Jennifer Koshan

On March 8, 2012

In Constitutional, Human Rights, State Responses to Violence

March 8 is International Women’s Day, and Calgary law firm Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer marked the occasion with a luncheon highlighting the work of the Equality Effect. The Equality Effect – or E2 – is an international network of human rights advocates (including community members, artists, musicians, film makers, health care workers, journalists, lawyers, academics, students, judges and Parliamentarians), primarily from Canada, Ghana, Kenya and Malawi, who are working to improve the lives of women and girls using human rights law. Fiona Sampson, E2’s Executive Director, spoke at the luncheon about the 160 Girls Project, a legal initiative aimed at forcing Kenyan authorities to protect girls in Kenya from sexual violence. I am part of the vast volunteer legal team that is working on this project, which includes students from across the country, as well as lawyers and activists from the Equality Effect’s partner countries. Also attending the luncheon were U of C law students Gabrielle Motuz, Amanda Winters, and Meghan Tonner, all of whom have done volunteer research for the Equality Effect (along with many more student volunteers from U of C who could not attend or who have graduated).

I Fought the Law: Civil Disobedience and the Law in Canada

By Jennifer Koshan

On February 27, 2012

In Constitutional, Human Rights, Municipal Law

PDF version: I Fought the Law: Civil Disobedience and the Law in Canada

Cases commented on: Calgary (City) v Bullock (Occupy Calgary), 2011 ABQB 764;
Batty v City of Toronto, 2011 ONSC 6862; R v SA, 2011 ABPC 269; R v Charlebois, 2011 ABPC 238, etc.

On February 1, 2012, I participated in a public forum entitled “Civil Disobedience: Concept, Law and Practice” organized by the Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership. This post is an elaboration of my remarks at the forum on how civil disobedience is handled under Canadian law. I will review some recent cases on civil disobedience, including the Occupy litigation, to examine issues such as whether civil disobedience may be protected under the Charter, and if not, what sorts of sanctions protestors might expect to face.

“The proof of the pudding is in the eating” that litigation is not the best way to quantify interim costs.

By Jennifer Koshan

On January 11, 2012

In Access to Justice, Civil Procedure, Constitutional

PDF version: “The proof of the pudding is in the eating” that litigation is not the best way to quantify interim costs.

Case considered: R v Caron, 2011 ABCA 385

Gilles Caron has been a very present figure before the Alberta courts since ABlawg began posting comments in late 2007 (see here). Caron is challenging the constitutionality of Alberta’s legislation on the basis that the province’s laws are not enacted in both English and French. That issue is now before the Court of Appeal (see 2010 ABCA 343 and here). Caron’s litigation has also involved an access to justice component in that he has pursued interim costs awards to fund his litigation. That issue went to the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled that the Alberta government was required to fund Caron’s language rights challenge (see 2011 SCC 5, [2011] 1 SCR 78 and here). The lingering question was, to what extent was such funding required? That issue was recently considered by the Alberta Court of Appeal. In a decision written by Justice Jean Côté, Caron was awarded far less funding than he sought for the Court of Appeal litigation, and in the form of a loan rather than a grant (see 2011 ABCA 385).

The Repeal of the Long Gun Registry: A Violation of the Federal Government’s Obligations Concerning Violence Against Women?

By Jennifer Koshan

On December 8, 2011

In Constitutional, Criminal, Family, Human Rights

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: The Repeal of the Long Gun Registry: A Violation of the Federal Government’s Obligations Concerning Violence Against Women?

Legislation considered: Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (“Ending the Long-gun Registry Act”), 41st Parliament, 1st Session

December 6, 2011 was the National Day of Remembrance for Violence Against Women, which marked the 22nd anniversary of the Montreal Massacre. The Globe and Mail‘s Jane Taber indicated that “government MPs [were] purposely shut out from officially speaking at and attending an event on Parliament Hill to honour the 14 young women who were shot dead in 1989,” because the government is about to repeal the long gun registry (see Bill C-19). The Montreal Massacre was one of the pressure points for the registry, as was the use of firearms in crimes of domestic violence. When the Alberta government challenged the constitutionality of the registry, which was implemented via the Firearms Act, SC 1995, ch 39, as an amendment to the Criminal Code, the Supreme Court found that it was properly enacted under the federal government’s criminal law powers (see Reference re Firearms Act (Can.), 2000 SCC 31, [2000] 1 SCR 783 at paras 43, 59). The enactment of the law creating the registry was constitutional; but is its repeal unlawful? I think an argument can be made that the federal government’s abolishment of the long gun registry is unconstitutional on Charter grounds, as well as contrary to international law.