Author Archives: Linda McKay-Panos

About Linda McKay-Panos

Linda McKay-Panos is the Executive Director of the Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre. She taught Language Arts and Social Studies with the Calgary Board of Education for 7 years before returning to university to obtain a Law Degree. She practiced law for a time, before joining the Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre in 1992 as a Research Associate. Linda is a sessional instructor in the Faculties of Communication and Culture and Law at the University of Calgary. Linda received her Bachelor of Education, Bachelor of Laws and Master of Laws degrees from the University of Calgary. Linda is the President of the Alberta Association for Multicultural Education and the Past President of the Public Legal Education Network of Alberta. Linda is the author of several publications dealing with civil liberties, access to information, human rights, discrimination, equality and related topics. Linda received the 2001 Suzanne Mah Award and an Alberta Centennial Medal in 2005 for her work in human rights in Alberta.

Arbitration, Disability and Human Rights Cases

PDF version: Arbitration, Disability and Human Rights Cases

Case commented on: AUPE v Alberta, 2013 ABCA 212.

This case involves the fairly technical issue of whether, in Alberta, a grievance involving a human rights issue should be resolved by an adjudicator who is entirely independent of the employer, who is a party. In this case, the collective agreement provided for the complaint to be resolved before a Designated Officer who was an employee of one of the parties, although not subject to the collective agreement. The Labour Relations Code, RSA 2000, c L-1 (Labour Code), section 135, provides that every collective agreement must include a dispute resolution mechanism, but does not contain any direct statement requiring that the arbitration mechanism must operate in circumstances absent a reasonable apprehension of bias (as is the case in some other provinces). There had been some prior cases involving section 135, but none of these involved a potential breach of both the collective agreement and the Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c A-25.5 (AHRA).

Continue reading →

Publication Bans in Police Mr. Big Operations

PDF version: Publication Bans in Police Mr. Big Operations013

Case commented on: R v NRR, 2013 ABQB 302.

NRR was a youth who was being charged with two counts of second degree murder, one count of possession of stolen property, and one count of break and enter. The Crown offered into evidence statements made by NRR during a Mr. Big undercover operation.  This type of operation usually involves undercover members of the police posing as criminals, involving the suspect in what he or she thinks is a criminal gang in order to gain his or her trust and eventually obtain a confession for the actual crimes.  The accused (NRR) objected to the admission of the RCMP evidence on the basis that his rights under Charter section 7 had been violated. The Crown applied for a publication ban on identifying information about the undercover police officers who participated in the investigation. The Crown argued that the publication ban should be for three years, and NRR and the Edmonton Journal argued that the ban should only be for one year.

Continue reading →

New Developments in Long Running Alberta Privacy Case

PDF version: New Developments in Long Running Alberta Privacy Case

Decision considered: Alberta Teachers’ Association v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2013 ABQB 106.

This case, which has a long judicial history, has been followed closely by those interested in information and privacy procedures. The issues raised by the decision were discussed in my previous ABlawg post “Supreme Court of Canada Saves Timing for the Alberta Information and Privacy Commissioner” here. Also see Alice Woolley’s ABlawg post on this decision ‘True Questions of Jurisdiction: Administrative Law’s Unicorns” here. The current case is interesting because the Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA) now seeks to amend its Originating Application to the Court of Queen’s Bench to include a request for declarations that selected provisions of the Personal Information Protection Act SA 2003, c P-6.5 (PIPA) and the PIPA Regulation, Alta Reg 366/2003 are unconstitutional, or that the adjudicator’s order is unconstitutional.

Continue reading →

Update in the Area of Family Status Discrimination

PDF version: Update in the Area of Family Status Discrimination

Case considered: Canadian National Railway v Denise Seeley and Canadian Human Rights Commission, 2013 FC 117.

In 2010, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal released three cases involving Alberta women who alleged they were being discriminated against on the basis of family status. In a previous post I wrote on the outcome (see “Accommodation for Family Status Required by Federal Human Rights Tribunal for Three Alberta Women” December 22, 2010 here) in which CNR was required to accommodate parental responsibilities of all three women. Canadian National Railway (CNR) applied for judicial review on the case of Denise Seeley. The decision of Justice Mandamin of the Federal Court presents an attempt to reconcile two lines of decisions that addressed what “family status” discrimination entails. On a larger scale, this case is one of several in which gender and family status discrimination are argued to be result of social construct or personal choice rather than the operation of law or the result of discrimination in an activity that is covered by human rights legislation (e.g., employment, tenancy, services, accommodation and publications).

Continue reading →

Selling Drug Paraphernalia a Pithy Criminal Substance

PDF version: Selling Drug Paraphernalia a Pithy Criminal Substance

Case considered: Smith v St Albert (City), 2012 ABQB 780.

In January, 2013, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Terry Clackson ruled that a recent St. Albert bylaw that restricted the sale of drug paraphernalia must be struck down, because the bylaw fell outside the jurisdiction of the municipality (i.e., it was ultra vires). The bylaw in this case prohibited the display or sale of more than two products from a list of banned items, including pipes, marijuana grinders or products which display an image of a marijuana leaf. Business establishments that sell these and other forms of drug paraphernalia are sometimes referred to as “bong” or “head” shops, and exist in many municipalities across Canada.

Continue reading →