Category: Constitutional Page 1 of 74

In a representative democracy, an elected representative is chosen by voters in their assigned electoral district. It goes without saying that the integrity of the process used to determine electoral districts is essential to a functional representative democracy. Any whiff of partisan influence on the process will poison the legitimacy of electoral outcomes, raising the spectre that electoral districts were drawn to ensure a particular result on voting day. This is known as “gerrymandering”. Political commentators (see here and here and here) have described the minority report issued by the two UCP-appointed members of the 2025-2026 Alberta Electoral Boundaries Commission as classic gerrymandering. We are not quite there yet because it remains to be seen whether the minority report will be implemented by the UCP government. This post describes the content of the Electoral Boundaries Commission report submitted to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly on March 23, 2026 (the “Report”) and explores what legal guardrails exist to prevent gerrymandering from infecting Alberta’s democracy.

Back to School Act Survives Injunction Application

By Jennifer Koshan

On March 26, 2026

In Charter, Constitutional, Education, Equality, Injunctions, Labour/Employment, Rule of Law

By: Jennifer Koshan

Case Commented On: Alberta Teachers Association v Alberta (AG), 2026 ABKB 190

PDF Version: Back to School Act Survives Injunction Application

On March 13, 2026, Justice Douglas R. Mah denied the application of the Alberta Teachers Association (ATA) for an interlocutory injunction to suspend operation of the Back to School Act, SA 2025, c B-05 (BSA). Background on this legislation and the Alberta government’s use of the Charter’s notwithstanding clause to override the teachers’ rights to collectively bargain and strike appears in earlier ABlawg posts here and here. This post will discuss Justice Mah’s reasons, including his commentary on the role of judges in a constitutional democracy. This commentary is a sign of the times in Alberta, with the government posing threats to the rule of law and judges feeling compelled to speak out and defend their role. And it is not just the Alberta government seeking to exert more control over the judiciary. On March 24, Alberta was joined by the governments of Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Quebec in calling for a greater say for the provinces in the selection of federally appointed judges. The provinces’ letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney came during a week when the Supreme Court of Canada is hearing what many consider to be the most important constitutional case since the Charter came into effect in 1982, English Montreal School Board, et al v Attorney General of Quebec, et al, 2025 CanLII 2818 (SCC) (EMSB). EMSB involves foundational issues about the powers of judges after a government has invoked the Charter’s notwithstanding clause, section 33. As I will discuss, the EMSB case played a key role in Justice Mah’s decision.

The Proposed Co-operation Agreement on Environmental and Impact Assessment between Canada and Alberta

By Nigel Bankes

On March 18, 2026

In Administrative Law, Constitutional, Environmental, Indigenous, Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes

Document Commented On: Draft Co-operation Agreement on Environmental and Impact Assessment between Canada and Alberta, March 6, 2026

PDF Version: The Proposed Co-operation Agreement on Environmental and Impact Assessment between Canada and Alberta

On March 6, 2026 the Governments of Canada and Alberta released a draft co-operation agreement on “Environmental and Impact Assessment”, thereby leading the way to fulfilling one of the undertakings contained in the Memorandum of Understanding on Energy (MOU) signed by the two governments on November 27, 2025. The MOU committed the parties to “Negotiate a cooperation agreement on impact assessments on or before April 1, 2026, that reduces duplication through a single assessment process that respects federal and provincial jurisdictions.” The Draft Agreement is open for comment until March 26, 2026.

The Notwithstanding Clause x 4 in Alberta: Now What?

By Jennifer Koshan

On March 10, 2026

In Charter, Constitutional

By: Jennifer Koshan

Legislation Commented On: Back to School Act, SA 2025, c B?0.5; Protecting Alberta’s Children Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, SA 2025, c 24

PDF Version: The Notwithstanding Clause x 4 in Alberta: Now What?

As discussed previously on ABlawg, in the space of one month in late 2025 the Alberta government invoked the notwithstanding clause in section 33 of the Charter four times through two different statutes: the Back to School Act, SA 2025, c B?0.5 (BTSA) and the Protecting Alberta’s Children Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, SA 2025, c 24 (PACSAA). The BTSA ended the Alberta teachers’ strike and lockout, ordered the teachers back to work, imposed “collective agreements”, and prohibited further strikes and lockouts with hefty penalties attached (see this post by Shaun Fluker et al). The government used section 33 to declare that the BTSA shall operate notwithstanding sections 2 and 7 to 15 of the Charter (section 3) and purported to oust the jurisdiction of courts to hear constitutional challenges related to the legislation (section 14). The PACSAA amended three Alberta statutes that target the rights of trans and gender diverse youth by restricting access to gender-affirming health care (Health Professions Act, RSA 2000, c H-7, ss 1.91 and 1.92), prohibiting use of gender-affirming names and pronouns at school without parental consent / notification (Education Act, SA 2012, c E-0.3, s 33.2; see also amendments that limit access to education on sex, sexuality and gender identity), and limiting participation in “women-only” sports (Fairness and Safety in Sport Act, SA 2024, c F-2.5) (see this previous post). The amendments in the PACSAA again declare that these three statutes shall operate notwithstanding sections 2 and 7 to 15 of the Charter. Pursuant to section 33(3) of the Charter, declarations such as those in the BTSA and PACSSA cease to have effect five years after they come into force. The BTSA and the PACSAA also declare that they apply notwithstanding the Alberta Bill of Rights, SA 2000, c A-14 and Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c A-25.5, but the issues arising from those declarations will not be explored here.

“Declarations of Aboriginal Title Are Not Discretionary”

By Kent McNeil

On February 11, 2026

In Aboriginal, Constitutional, Indigenous, Property, Reconciliation

By: Kent McNeil

Case Commented On: JD Irving, Limited et al v Wolastoqey Nations, 2025 NBCA 129 (CanLII); Wolastoqey Nations v New Brunswick and Canada, et al., 2024 NBKB 203 (CanLII)

PDF Version: “Declarations of Aboriginal Title Are Not Discretionary”

Robert Hamilton has already posted an ABlawg article on the recent New Brunswick Court of Appeal decision in the Wolastoqey Nations case. In it, he does an excellent job of summarizing the issues on the motion to strike the industrial defendants from the proceedings and of critically analyzing the Court of Appeal’s decision. I will therefore focus my commentary on what I regard as another troubling aspect of the decision, namely that a judicial declaration does not necessarily follow from a factual finding of Aboriginal title.

This action was brought by the Wolastoqey Nations against Canada, New Brunswick, and a number of industrial, fee simple landowners who brought the motion to strike to avoid participation in the litigation. On such a motion, the facts alleged in the statement of claim are assumed to be established. The question was thus limited to whether these landowners were proper parties.

Category: Constitutional Page 1 of 74

The Minority Report on Electoral Districts: Will the Law Protect Alberta from UCP Gerrymandering?

Back to School Act Survives Injunction Application

The Proposed Co-operation Agreement on Environmental and Impact Assessment between Canada and Alberta

The Notwithstanding Clause x 4 in Alberta: Now What?

“Declarations of Aboriginal Title Are Not Discretionary”