University of Calgary Faculty of Law ABLawg.ca logo over mountains

Author: Jonnette Watson Hamilton Page 1 of 43

B.A. (Alta.), LL.B. (Dal.), LL.M. (Col.).
Professor Emerita.
Please click here for more information.

Teaching Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation

By

On March 13, 2025

In Aboriginal, Constitutional, Statutory Interpretation, Supreme Court of Canada

 By: Robert Hamilton, Jennifer Koshan, and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

Case Commented On: Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, 2024 SCC 10 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Teaching Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation

It has been a year since the Supreme Court of Canada released its landmark decision in Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, 2024 SCC 10 (CanLII), and many of us are still grappling with how to include Dickson in our teaching materials. For those teaching international law, or the interplay between Canadian law, Indigenous law, and international law, this previous post might be a useful summary of Dickson’s commentary (or lack thereof) on the legal significance of Canada’s adoption and implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In this post, we deal with another important issue – whether the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies in the context of modern treaties, or at least in the context of the treaty and surrounding documents that governed the dispute between Cindy Dickson and the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation (VGFN). We provide a summary and critique of the judgments of the Supreme Court on this issue, which concern the interpretation and application of section 32(1) of the Charter in light of constitutional text, history, and precedents as applied to the facts at hand. The majority judgment of Justices Nicolas Kasirer and Mahmud Jamal provide an excellent summary of previous jurisprudence on section 32(1) and could replace a swath of case law on the constitutional law syllabus. But the concurring judgment of Justices Sheilah Martin and Michelle O’Bonsawin, and the dissenting judgment of Justice Malcolm Rowe, are also worthy of discussion given their insights on the complexities of debates surrounding the issue of Charter application. We hope that this summary of the various judgments and our commentary on those judgments will be helpful for those teaching constitutional law and adjacent subjects. We also plan to write a second post focusing on the section 15(1) and section 25 Charter issues in Dickson.

Read More

Thin Gruel: The Crisis Management Team Review

By

On February 18, 2025

In Protest

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton and Jennifer Koshan

Document commented on: Crisis Management Team Review, University of Calgary – Response to Protest Encampment: Final Report (November 4, 2024)

PDF Version: Thin Gruel: The Crisis Management Team Review

On November 4, 2024, consulting firm MNP released their Crisis Management Team (CMT) Review (CMT Review) of the University of Calgary’s response to the May 9, 2024 pro-Palestine encampment on campus. On December 2nd, the University’s Executive Leadership Team (ELT) added a few minor corrections to the review’s timeline and accepted all four recommendations in their Response to the CMT Review (ELT Response). On December 13th, Mark Herman, the Chair of the University’s Board of Governors (BOG), indicated the BOG was satisfied “there are no more material facts that we need to gather, and … management exercised sound judgment in a difficult, no-win situation (Mark Herman, “Review of university response to protest encampment concludes”, UCalgary News (13 December 2024)). Whether that is the end of the matter remains to be seen as both the University’s Students’ Union and its General Faculties Council have demanded an independent review of the University’s response to the encampment. And whether the CMT Review’s thin gruel will satisfy the appetite for a substantive review seems doubtful for several reasons.

Read More

Shared Accommodation in Alberta: Law for Roommates and Those Sharing Living Space with Their Landlords

By

On December 20, 2024

In Landlord/Tenant, Residential Tenancies Dispute Resolution Service

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

Case Commented On: Layeghpour v Paproski, 2024 ABCJ 140 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Shared Accommodation in Alberta: Law for Roommates and Those Sharing Living Space with Their Landlords

Shared accommodation has become increasingly common in Alberta for many reasons, including the unaffordability of both owned and rented housing. I discuss this phenomenon in Part One of this post. Shared accommodation includes roommates sharing a dwelling, individuals sharing living spaces with owner-occupiers of single-family homes, duplexes and condominiums, and – sometimes – multigenerational households. Sharing living space usually means sharing a kitchen, bathroom and/or living room. However, shared accommodation law is a grey area of the law – underdeveloped by Canadian courts, its existence is unknown to most people. Contrary to the expectations of many, Alberta’s Residential Tenancies Act, SA 2004, c R-17, does not apply to shared accommodation. That means the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service (RTDRS) is not available to resolve any disputes. The Innkeepers Act, RSA 2000, c I-2, does not apply either because “innkeeper” is defined to include only those who provide lodging to any person who presents themselves as a guest who appears to be able and willing to pay and “in a fit state to be received” (s 1(b)). It is the common law that applies to the relationship those sharing accommodation are found to have, whether that is a licence or a lease relationship. It is therefore best to prevent disputes with an agreement – preferably a signed, written agreement. The Centre for Public Legal Education Alberta has excellent resources for those planning or already in shared accommodations on their “Roommates and Shared Accommodation” website, which I describe in Part Two. In Part Three, I focus on my primary reason for writing this post, and that is the decision of Justice Sandra L. Corbett in Layeghpour v Paproski, 2024 ABCJ 140 (CanLII) in which she sets out much of the common law governing shared accommodations.

Read More

The University’s Kafkaesque Direction on Temporary Structures and Overnight Protests: “You are not supposed to see this.”

By

On November 5, 2024

In Protest

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton and Shaun Fluker

Document Commented On: University Direction on Temporary Structures and Overnight Protests, 2024-UC-003-A, revised May 3, 2024

PDF Version: The University’s Kafkaesque Direction on Temporary Structures and Overnight Protests: “You are not supposed to see this.”

Questions about the authority exercised and the process followed by the University of Calgary when it acted on the “University Direction on Temporary Structures and Overnight Protests” (Direction) were raised in an earlier an ABlawg post on “Encampments on Campus Part 2.” As discussed in more detail in that earlier post, the Direction – identified as “2024-UC-003-A, Revised May 3, 2024” – was apparently sent to all U of C students by May 3 and handed out to pro-Palestinian protesters on campus on May 9, the same day the protesters set up their on-campus encampment and the Calgary Police Service (CPS) tore it down and forcibly removed those protesters. The Direction states that failure to follow the university’s Use of University Facilities for Non-Academic Purposes Policy (Facilities Policy) and the Direction “may constitute non-academic misconduct (students), cause for disciplinary action (staff), and/or grounds to be trespassed from the University of Calgary’s premises (all).”

Read More

A Landmark Decision in Canadian Charter-based Climate Litigation: Mathur v Ontario, 2024 ONCA 762

By

On October 31, 2024

In Climate Change, Constitutional

By: Martin Olszynski, Jennifer Koshan, Nigel Bankes, and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

Case commented on: Mathur v Ontario, 2024 ONCA 762 (CanLII)

PDF Version: A Landmark Decision in Canadian Charter-based Climate Litigation: Mathur v Ontario, 2024 ONCA 762

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently released its decision in Mathur v Ontario, 2024 ONCA 762 (CanLII). ABlawg readers will know that this is one of three Charter-based climate lawsuits currently making their way through Canadian courts. The other two are La Rose v Canada, 2023 FCA 241 (CanLII), which involves a challenge to the federal government’s climate policies, and Dykstra et al v Saskatchewan Power Corporation, which involves a challenge to the Saskatchewan government’s and SaskPower’s decisions to expand gas-fired electricity generation (see our previous post on La Rose here). In this post, we contrast the trial and appellate reasons in Mathur (and where relevant, in La Rose FCA) and offer our commentary on several key issues in this litigation.

Read More

Page 1 of 43

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén