Author: Jennifer Koshan Page 8 of 41

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

Reports Commented On: Family Violence Death Review Committee, Annual Report 2018-2019 and Case Review Reports 7 and 8, available here

At the mid-point of 2019, police reported that over half of all homicides in Calgary in the year to date – 54% – had occurred in the context of domestic violence. The Family Violence Death Review Committee (FVDRC) issued its annual report for 2018-19 in December 2019, which reports that between 2008 and 2018 there were 189 family violence deaths in Alberta (at 11). Of the 23 Albertans who died in family violence related incidents in 2018, 20 were victims and three were perpetrators who died in murder-suicides (at 13). The report clearly shows that family violence deaths in Alberta are gendered. Ninety per cent of perpetrators in 2018 were male, and 16 of the 20 victims were female, with the majority being women aged 20-29 who were killed with a weapon (at 14). Two of the victims were children. Previous FVDRC reports confirm that family violence related deaths in Alberta are gendered (see 2017-18 Annual Report at 5, 2016 Annual Report at 5, 2015-16 Annual Report at 14, and 2014-15 Annual Report at 28).

The Alberta Inquiry and Freedom of Expression

By Jennifer Koshan

On December 17, 2019

In Constitutional, Energy

By: Jennifer Koshan and Linda McKay-Panos

PDF Version: The Alberta Inquiry and Freedom of Expression

Matter Commented On: Alberta Inquiry into Anti-Alberta Energy Campaigns

Our colleagues Martin Olszynski and Shaun Fluker have posted concerns about the Alberta Inquiry into Anti-Alberta Energy Campaigns from the perspective of the rule of law and procedural fairness (see here and here). Amnesty International has also raised concerns about the Inquiry’s “aggressive approach to defending the oil and gas industry from criticism” and the impact this approach will have on human rights defenders – especially those who are Indigenous, women, and/or environmental activists. Ecojustice flagged similar concerns about freedom of expression in its letter to Inquiry Commissioner Steve Allan.

Bill 26 and the Rights of Farm and Ranch Workers in Alberta

By Jennifer Koshan

On November 29, 2019

In Constitutional, Labour/Employment

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: Bill 26 and the Rights of Farm and Ranch Workers in Alberta

Bill Commented On: Bill 26, Farm Freedom and Safety Act, 2019 (First Session, 30th Legislature)

As promised in its election platform, the UCP government has taken steps to repeal parts of Bill 6, the Enhanced Protection for Farm and Ranch Workers Act – the NDP’s initiative to extend labour and employment protections to farm and ranch workers. For previous posts on the need for Bill 6 and the changes that it made to labour and employment legislation in Alberta, see here. The latest development in this saga is last week’s introduction of Bill 26, the Farm Freedom and Safety Act, 2019, which had second reading in the legislature on November 26, 2019. This post will describe the changes that Bill 26 seeks to make and discuss the possibilities of a constitutional challenge to the Bill.

Clare’s Law: Unintended Consequences for Domestic Violence Victims?

By Jennifer Koshan

On October 18, 2019

In State Responses to Violence

By: Jennifer Koshan and Wanda Wiegers

PDF Version: Clare’s Law: Unintended Consequences for Domestic Violence Victims?

Bill Commented On: Bill 17, Disclosure to Protect Against Domestic Violence (Clare’s Law) Act

On Wednesday the Alberta government introduced Bill 17, the Disclosure to Protect Against Domestic Violence (Clare’s Law) Act. Plans for this law were announced during the spring 2019 election campaign by the United Conservative Party (UCP). Given that the UCP voted against several measures to combat violence against women introduced by the previous NDP government, it is worth exploring why this government might prioritize such a law and what its impacts – both intended and unintended – might be.

Time for Buy-Back: Supreme Court Set to Hear Important Adverse Effects Discrimination Case

By Jennifer Koshan

On September 5, 2019

In Constitutional, Equality

By: Jennifer Koshan and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Time for Buy Back: Supreme Court Set to Hear Important Adverse Effects Discrimination Case

Case Commented On: Fraser v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 223 (CanLII), leave to appeal granted, 2019 CanLII 42345 (SCC)

In December, the Supreme Court of Canada will hear an appeal in an equality rights challenge under section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Several female members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police argue that their employer’s pension rules – which denied pension buy-back rights to those who were job-sharing – discriminated against them based on their sex and family or parental status. The case is a classic example of adverse effects discrimination, involving a claim that a law or policy that is neutral on its face has an adverse impact on the basis of grounds protected under section 15(1). In this post we will review the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal decisions rejecting the women’s claim to set the stage for the upcoming appeal at the Supreme Court.

Author: Jennifer Koshan Page 8 of 41

Family Violence Deaths in Alberta – An Analysis of the 2019 Reports

The Alberta Inquiry and Freedom of Expression

Bill 26 and the Rights of Farm and Ranch Workers in Alberta

Clare’s Law: Unintended Consequences for Domestic Violence Victims?

Time for Buy-Back: Supreme Court Set to Hear Important Adverse Effects Discrimination Case