Author: Jennifer Koshan Page 7 of 45

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

Critical Infrastructure Defence Act Charter Challenge Survives Alberta Government’s Motion to Strike

By Jennifer Koshan

On August 5, 2021

In Constitutional, Human Rights

By: Jennifer Koshan, Lisa Silver and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Critical Infrastructure Defence Act Charter Challenge Survives Alberta Government’s Motion to Strike

Case Commented On: Alberta Union of Public Employees v Her Majesty the Queen (Alberta), 2021 ABQB 371 (CanLII)

Last summer we posted a critical analysis of Alberta’s Bill 1, the Critical Infrastructure Defence Act, SA 2020, c C-32.7 (CIDA). We argued that CIDA, which prohibits unlawfully entering onto, damaging, or obstructing any “essential infrastructure” in the province, violates several sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including freedom of expression (s 2(b)), freedom of peaceful assembly (s 2(c)), freedom of association (s 2(d)), the right to liberty (s 7) and the right to equality (s 15). Shortly after CIDA took effect on June 7, 2020, the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE) and three individual plaintiffs brought a constitutional challenge against the law, arguing that it violates those Charter rights and freedoms (with the exception of s 15, which was not raised), as well as sections 1(a), (c), and (d) of the Alberta Bill of Rights, RSA 2000, c A-14 (which protect similar rights as well as the right to enjoyment of property). The plaintiffs also contended that CIDA encroaches on federal jurisdiction under The Constitution Act, 1867, namely, s 91(27) (federal jurisdiction over criminal law) and s 92(10)(a) (federal jurisdiction over interprovincial works and undertakings). In a decision released in June, Justice Shaina Leonard of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench dismissed the government’s motion to strike the challenge.

Protection Against Online Hate Speech: Time for Federal Action

By Jennifer Koshan

On March 19, 2021

In Equality, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, Human Rights, Internet Law

By: Emily Laidlaw & Jennifer Koshan, with Emma Arnold-Fyfe, Lubaina Baloch, Jack Hoskins, and Charlotte Woo

PDF Version: Protection Against Online Hate Speech: Time for Federal Action

Legislation Commented On: Canadian Human Rights Act, RSC 1985, c H-6

Editor’s Note

During Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Week at the University of Calgary in February 2021, the Faculty of Law’s EDI Committee held a research-a-thon where students undertook research on the law’s treatment of equity, diversity and inclusion issues. Over the next few weeks, we will be publishing a series of ABlawg posts that are the product of this initiative. This post is the first in the series, which also closely coincides with the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination next week on March 21. The theme this year is “Youth Standing Up Against Racism”, which fits well with this initiative.

Introduction

On January 5^th, 2021, Erin O’Toole, leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, tweeted “Not one criminal should be vaccinated ahead of any vulnerable Canadian or front line health worker.” His tweet unsurprisingly went viral. To date the tweet has received 6.1k likes, 3.6k retweets and 4.8k comments. The tweet is representative of the kind of internet content we have grown increasingly and painfully accustomed to: content that is rhetorical, overblown, and often hateful, even if not explicitly directed at marginalized groups, and that occurs on a platform with global reach. When Erin O’Toole tweets, it is to an audience of 122.7k followers.

This post is not about Erin O’Toole’s tweet per se. Indeed, while his tweet dehumanizes prisoners and those with a criminal record, persons who are disproportionately Indigenous, it is not obvious, on its face, that it meets the legal standard of hate speech. Rather, this post is about what tweets like his represent in the struggle to regulate hate speech online: that so much we intuitively know is wrong falls into a legal grey area, and that much of the harm is the mob pile-on that the original post inspires. In the case of the O’Toole tweet, many tweets in response have been removed by Twitter, but it is noteworthy that thousands of others addressed the harmful nature of his statements with tweets such as “prison health is public health”, recognizing the risk of COVID-19 transmission in prisons.

The Family Violence Death Review Committee’s Latest Annual Report: Time for a Family Violence Action Plan in Alberta

By Jennifer Koshan

On February 4, 2021

In Family

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: The Family Violence Death Review Committee’s Latest Annual Report: Time for a Family Violence Action Plan in Alberta

Report Commented On: Family Violence Death Review Committee, 2019/2020 Annual Report

The 2019/2020 Annual Report of Alberta’s Family Violence Death Review Committee (FVDRC) appeared with little fanfare on the government’s website in mid-January 2021. There was no news release, perhaps because the UCP government has been called out for failing to respond to the recommendations in two of the FVDRC’s previous reports from 2019 (see a discussion of those reports here and MLA Janis Irwin’s questions in the Legislative Assembly in December 2020 here (at 3804)). This post will review the major findings from the latest FVDRC Annual Report and situate the work of the FVDRC in developments around a provincial action plan on family violence. Given the evidence that family violence has increased and intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic, including in Alberta, action on the part of the government is critical. Moreover, given that family violence is gendered and disproportionately impacts members of marginalized communities – including during COVID-19 – failure to act has human rights implications for survivors (and non-survivors) of family violence.

Domestic Violence and Access to Justice: A Mapping of Relevant Laws, Policies and Justice System Components Across Canada

By Jennifer Koshan

On December 7, 2020

In Access to Justice, Family, State Responses to Violence

By: Jennifer Koshan, Janet Mosher and Wanda Wiegers

PDF Version: Domestic Violence and Access to Justice: A Mapping of Relevant Laws, Policies and Justice System Components Across Canada

Matter Commented On: eBook on Domestic Violence Law across Canada, 2020 CanLIIDocs 3160

November 25 to December 10 marks the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-based Violence provincially, federally and internationally. This is therefore an apt time for the publication of our new eBook on domestic violence law across Canada on Can LII (available at 2020 CanLIIDocs 316 0). This eBook is the first resource to systematically document all of the laws and government policies that pertain to domestic violence across the country as a first step in providing access to justice. Several of the laws and policies we discuss in the eBook have been previously addressed in ABlawg posts (see e.g. Clare ’s Law: Unintended Consequ ences for Domestic Violence Victims?; Manda tory Dispute Resolution Coming Back to Alberta, But What About Domestic Violence Cases?; Alberta’s Family Violence Laws: Intersections, Inconsistencies and Access to Justice). This post reproduces the Introduction and User Guide for this new eBook, which is aimed at people working with and supporting survivors of domestic violence, as well as researchers and government actors.

Tugging at the Strands: Adverse Effects Discrimination and the Supreme Court Decision in Fraser

By Jennifer Koshan

On November 9, 2020

In Constitutional, Equality, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Jennifer Koshan and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Tugging at the Strands: Adverse Effects Discrimination and the Supreme Court Decision in Fraser

Case Commented On: Fraser v Canada (Attorney General), 2020 SCC 28 (CanLII)

On October 16, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada released its long-awaited decision in Fraser v Canada (Attorney General), 2020 SCC 28 (CanLII). Fraser involved a claim of adverse effects discrimination by female RCMP members who lost their entitlement to full pension benefits when they entered temporary job-sharing arrangements. We blogged on the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Fraser here, and – in the interests of disclosure – also participated in the Supreme Court intervention in Fraser by the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) (for LEAF’s news release following the Fraser decision, see here).

Fraser is the first successful adverse effects claim under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in over 20 years and it is the first ever successful adverse effects claim under section 15 in a sex discrimination context. This post will focus on the typical challenges that have been faced in adverse effects claims and review how Justice Rosalie Abella’s majority decision in Fraser responded to these problem areas, which were also apparent in the lower court decisions in Fraser. Although Justice Abella wrote for the majority of the Court (Chief Justice Richard Wagner and Justices Michael Moldaver, Andromache Karakatsanis, Sheilah Martin and Nicholas Kasirer, as well as herself), we will refer to the judgment as hers because it appears to be the culmination of her life-long work on equality rights and may be her last judgment on this subject before her retirement in 2021.

We also review the two dissenting judgments in Fraser, written by Justices Russell Brown / Malcolm Rowe and Justice Suzanne Côté. Our title is inspired by Justice Abella’s allegation that the dissent “tug[s] at the strands of a prior decision they disagree with … [to] unravel the precedent” (at para 133, referring to Alliance, one of the Court’s two 2018 pay equity decisions that we cite below). Interestingly, the same could be said of the majority judgement, which unravels the knots of a large body of section 15 jurisprudence that has made it difficult to prove adverse effects discrimination claims. It is these problem areas that we turn to next.