Author: Jennifer Koshan Page 4 of 44

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

By: Jennifer Koshan

Case Commented On: Alberta Health Services v Johnston, 2023 ABKB 209 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Mind the Gap: A New Tort of Harassment in Alberta

The law of torts is as old as the mythical reasonable man, but courts continue to create new torts that respond to changing social circumstances and formally recognize novel legal wrongs. In recent years, courts in Canada have accepted new torts such as intrusion upon seclusion (Jones v Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32 (Can LII)), public disclosure of private facts (ES v Shillington, 2021 ABQB 739 (Can LII)), family violence (Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia, 2022 ONSC 1303 (CanLII)), and harassment (Alberta Health Services v Johnston, 2023 ABKB 209 (CanLII)). In the first three cases, courts focused on gaps in existing legal doctrine and remedies as the basis for creating the new torts. In the fourth case, Johnston, Justice Colin Feasby decided that a tort of harassment was worthy of recognition, in part to explain the use of an existing remedy – common law restraining orders. His analysis is the subject of this post; a subsequent post will discuss Ahluwalia’s creation of the tort of family violence, which was recently overturned by the Ontario Court of Appeal (see 2023 ONCA 476 (CanLII)).

Webber Academy II: Balancing Religious Discrimination and Freedom from Religion in the Provision of Educational Services

By Jennifer Koshan

On July 6, 2023

In Constitutional, Human Rights

By: Howard Kislowicz and Jennifer Koshan

Case Commented On: Webber Academy Foundation v Alberta (Human Rights Commission), 2023 ABCA 194 (CanLII) (Webber Academy II)

PDF Version: Webber Academy II: Balancing Religious Discrimination and Freedom from Religion in the Provision of Educational Services

In the 2011-12 school year, Sarmad Amir and Naman Siddique (“the Students”) were denied prayer space at Webber Academy, where they had recently enrolled as grade 9/10 students. As observant Sunni Muslims, they prayed five times a day, which included school hours at some times of the year. Staff initially allowed the Students to pray in empty offices or classrooms; however, when the head of Webber Academy, Dr. Neil Webber, became aware of the situation, he informed the Students’ parents that prayers could only be performed off campus, or on campus without bowing or kneeling. The explanation was that Webber Academy did not provide physical accommodations for students of other religions to practice their faith, and that the Academy is a non-denominational school. The Students’ parents were also advised that because they had not followed the school’s policies, the Students would not be enrolled for the following year.

Commissioner Trussler Should Recommend Sanctions Against Premier Smith

By Jennifer Koshan

On June 30, 2023

In Ethics and the Legal Profession

By: Nigel Bankes and Jennifer Koshan

Matter Commented On: Conflicts of Interest Act, RSA 2000, c C-23 and the Report on Allegations involving Premier Danielle Smith

PDF Version: Commissioner Trussler Should Recommend Sanctions Against Premier Smith

In her report of May 17, 2023, Ethics Commissioner Marguerite Trussler concluded that Premier Danielle Smith had violated section 3 of the Conflicts of Interest Act, RSA 2000, c C-23, when she contacted the Minister of Justice and Attorney General within hours of taking a call from Artur Pawlowski, where she discussed the criminal charges he was facing. However, the Commissioner went on to note that at that point she was making no recommendations “with respect to sanctions against the Premier for consideration of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta” but that she reserved “the right to make recommendations once the Legislative Assembly is back in session” (at 16). Commissioner Trussler also made two additional recommendations. The first was that “[a]ll new Members of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta attend mandatory training upon election about the structure of Canadian government and the roles of the three branches of government” (at 16). The second was that the Legislative Assembly “consider whether to amend the Conflicts of Interest Act to provide for a stay on any ongoing investigation from the time that the writ drops for an election until the election results are certified” (at 16).

Ethics Commissioner Confirms that Premier Danielle Smith Breached the Conflicts of Interest Act – and a Fundamental Principle of Our Democracy

By Jennifer Koshan

On May 24, 2023

In Constitutional, Ethics and the Legal Profession, Legal Education

By: Nigel Bankes, Jennifer Koshan, and Martin Olszynski

Matter commented on: Office of the Ethics Commissioner, Report of Findings and Recommendations into allegations involving Hon. Danielle Smith, Member for Brooks-Medicine Hat, Premier of Alberta, May 17, 2023

PDF Version: Ethics Commissioner Confirms that Premier Danielle Smith Breached the Conflicts of Interest Act – and a Fundamental Principle of Our Democracy

In early January of this year, Premier Danielle Smith participated in a lengthy telephone conversation with Pastor Artur Pawlowski, who was at that time facing criminal charges and charges under the provincial Critical Infrastructure Defence Act, SA 2020, c C-32.7 in relation to the Coutts blockade. Artur Pawlowski recorded a video of that call that subsequently became available to the public. That recording triggered complaints to the Ethics Commissioner under the Conflicts of Interest Act, RSA 2000, c C-23 (COIA) by a private citizen and by Irfan Sabir, MLA for Calgary-Bhullar-McCall and NDP Justice Critic.

Premier Danielle Smith and the (Non) Observance of Constitutional Conventions

By Jennifer Koshan

On April 19, 2023

In Constitutional, Rule of Law

By: Nigel Bankes and Jennifer Koshan

Matter Commented On: Premier Smith’s interactions with the Department of Justice in the matter of Artur Pawlowski

PDF Version: Premier Danielle Smith and the (Non) Observance of Constitutional Conventions

For the past several weeks, news outlets have been reporting on Premier Danielle Smith’s involvement in prosecutions for COVID-19 and Coutts border blockade related offences. Most recently, a video was leaked of Premier Smith’s conversation with Artur Pawlowski, who is facing criminal charges for the Coutts blockade that Smith said she would discuss with Justice officials. One issue that has not squarely been addressed is the significance of whether Premier Smith actually spoke to prosecutors in Pawlowski’s case, or whether she just spoke to officials within the Department of Justice, including the Deputy Attorney General, about the case. The Premier’s back and forth on who she contacted suggests she believes this distinction matters, such that if she “only” did the latter she did not breach any constitutional convention relating to prosecutorial independence. In our view this is incorrect. Any contact by the Premier with the Department of Justice in relation to any particular case or class of cases is inconsistent with the constitutional conventions associated with the prosecution of criminal charges. These constitutional conventions are essential elements of the rule of law, the separation of powers, and ideas of equality before the law.