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.

Violence Against Aboriginal Women – Is Anyone Listening?

PDF version: Violence Against Aboriginal Women – Is Anyone Listening? 

Commented upon: The House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women, Study on Violence Against Aboriginal Women (Standing Order 108(2))

In March 2010, the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women (FEWO) undertook a study on violence against Aboriginal Women. It held meetings in Ottawa in April 2010, and travelled to various communities across Canada in 2010 and early 2011 to hold hearings and meet with interested individuals and organizations. The Committee wrapped up its tour with a visit to Edmonton on January 21, 2011, where I was called as a witness. Sadly, and in spite of receiving a news release related to this and earlier hearings, no one from the media was present in Edmonton, a situation we were told was replicated in the Committee’s other hearings. Although one of the Committee members, Conservative MP Nina Grewal, stated repeatedly during the hearing that violence against Aboriginal women is a “top priority” of the government, the issue does not appear to be getting much attention.

Continue reading →

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal’s Marriage Commissioners Decision – What are the Implications for Alberta?

Case and Legislation Commented On: In the Matter of Marriage Commissioners Appointed under the Marriage Act, SS 1995, c M-4.1, 2011 SKCA 3; Marriage Act, RSA 2000, c M-5

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruled last week on the constitutionality of proposed amendments to Saskatchewan’s Marriage Act, S.S. 1995, c.M-41, which would have allowed marriage commissioners to decline to perform marriage ceremonies that were contrary to their religious beliefs. The Court found that the proposed amendments violated the equality rights of gays and lesbians under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that this violation could not be justified under section 1 of the Charter because the Saskatchewan government had not minimally impaired the rights of same sex couples in the way it had set out the proposed scheme for religious exemptions.

What are the implications of the decision in Alberta? Surprisingly, the Marriage Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-5, still defines marriage as “marriage between a man and a woman” (section 1(c); see also the preamble), even though in 2004 the Supreme Court confirmed that the power to determine whether same sex couples have the capacity to marry belongs to the federal government under section 91(26) of the Constitution Act 1867 (Reference re Same-Sex Marriage, 2004 SCC 79, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 698). While the Alberta government tried to shield the law by using section 33 of the Charter, the notwithstanding clause, that clause could not have saved the invalidity of the Act on division of powers grounds, and the relevant section of the Marriage Act expired in 2005 in any event. Furthermore, Alberta marriage commissioners have been performing same sex marriages in this province since 2005 in spite of the heteronormative definition in the Marriage Act. An attempt to bring in a law similar to that ruled upon in the Saskatchewan case was defeated when Bill 208, the Protection of Fundamental Freedoms (Marriage) Statutes Amendment Act, 2006, was blocked by members of Alberta’s opposition parties. This Bill would have amended the Marriage Act and human rights legislation to protect marriage commissioners who refused to perform same sex marriages on religious or moral grounds. On the face of it then, marriage commissioners in Alberta do not have the sort of opting out protection that was considered in the Saskatchewan case.

Melissa Luhtanen of the Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre will be providing further analysis of the Saskatchewan case and its implications in Alberta on ABlawg; readers may also be interested in this post on the case by Denise Réaume on the Women’s Court of Canada blog.

Domestic Violence and Provocation: The Door Remains Open

PDF version: Domestic Violence and Provocation: The Door Remains Open 

Case Considered: R. v. Tran, 2010 SCC 58

The Supreme Court’s most recent decision, R. v. Tran, is an Alberta case I commented on at the Court of Appeal level. Tran involves a man who killed his estranged wife’s lover and slashed his wife’s face, causing her permanent injury. The issue in this case was whether there was provocation arising from the fact that the accused found his wife in bed with her lover, such that he should be convicted of manslaughter rather than second degree murder. In a decision authored by Justice Louise Charron, the Supreme Court agreed with the Alberta Court of Appeal that provocation was not made out in the circumstances of the case, and upheld the accused’s conviction for murder. While this is a positive outcome, in my view the Court did not go far enough in contextualizing this case as one involving domestic violence, nor did it foreclose future uses of the provocation defence in this context.

Continue reading →

Leave to Appeal Granted in Language Rights Case

PDF version: Leave to Appeal Granted in Language Rights Case

Case Considered: R. v. Caron, 2010 ABCA 343

Gilles Caron was charged with a traffic violation under Alberta’s Use of Highways and Rules of the Road Regulations, A.R. 304/2002, back in 2003. He sought to defend himself against that charge on the ground that Alberta legislation is unconstitutional because it is not enacted in both English and French. Caron’s case has two important dimensions to it. First, he argued that he was entitled to an interim costs award to permit him to pursue his language rights challenge, relying on British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 371. This argument was successful at the Court of Queen’s Bench (see Special Enough? Interim Costs and Access to Justice) and at the Court of Appeal (see Interim Costs Order Upheld in Language Rights Case). The Supreme Court granted the Alberta government leave to appeal in August 2009, and heard the appeal on the interim costs issue on April 13, 2010.

Continue reading →

Multiple Sexual Offence Proceedings and the Disclosure of “Records” under the Criminal Code

PDF version: Multiple Sexual Offence Proceedings and the Disclosure of “Records” under the Criminal Code

Case considered: R. v. Leykin, 2010 ABQB 631

Ruslan Leykin was charged with a number of sexual offences relating to N.W, who is also the complainant in a second sexual assault case involving a different accused. Leykin sought access to records in the possession of the Crown in relation to the second case, and argued that the governing procedure was that in R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326. The Crown argued that the proper procedure for determination of production of records was that set out under ss.278.1 to 278.9 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c.C-46 (“the production provisions”). In a short but important decision, Justice June Ross of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench agreed with the Crown, holding that the production provisions of the Criminal Code apply to records in the possession of the Crown in relation to a separate sexual assault proceeding. Continue reading →