Category Archives: Constitutional

COVID-19 and the Exercise of Legislative Power by the Executive

PDF Version: COVID-19 and the Exercise of Legislative Power by the Executive

Legislation Commented On: Regulations Act, RSA 2000, c R-14 and Public Health Orders issued in relation to COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has become a rare opportunity to study the widespread exercise of emergency lawmaking powers in Canada. Governments have enacted legal rules on matters such as social distancing, quarantine, economic controls, regulatory relief, employment standards, landlord-tenant, access to justice, and health care protocols. Commentators have warned that we must remain vigilant in ensuring these emergency measures do not offend the rule of law, and this message is likely to intensify as more emergency measures are used to either further the current shutdown or control our emergence from it; for example, in relation to surveillance and privacy rights as Joel Reardon, Emily Laidlaw, and Greg Hagen recently noted here. These substantive concerns are amplified by the fact that most COVID-19 emergency powers are being exercised by the executive branch of government and its delegates, using legislative power delegated to them in public health or emergency statutes. Because it is unlikely that legislatures envisioned such an extensive use of these powers for a prolonged time period, shortcomings and gaps in the lawmaking process are becoming apparent. Hallmarks such as organization, clarity, predictability, consistency, transparency, and justification – which, in normal times, provide the executive with much of its legitimacy to govern – have been impaired or are missing altogether in the exercise of legal power to contain COVID-19. This post examines how Alberta ministers and the Chief Medical Officer of Health have been exercising emergency powers so far during the pandemic, and makes some pointed observations on the hallmarks of legitimate governance and the role of the Regulations Act, RSA 2000, c R-14, in this regard. Continue reading →

Domestic Violence and Legal Issues Related to COVID-19, Part II

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: Domestic Violence and Legal Issues Related to COVID-19, Part II

In my last post, I discussed domestic violence dimensions of the responses of the government and judiciary in Alberta to the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing primarily on provincial law and policy. This follow-up post reviews additional provincial laws and policies (including those related to protection orders and employment/occupational health and safety), federal laws (including those governing protection orders on First Nations reserves, immigration, and employment), and the overarching human rights context for responses to domestic violence and COVID-19 by governments and private actors such as employers. Continue reading →

Alberta Court of Appeal Restores Access to Habeas Corpus

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Alberta Court of Appeal Restores Access to Habeas Corpus

Case Commented On: Wilcox v Alberta, 2020 ABCA 104 (CanLII) (Wilcox CA)

This Court of Appeal decision is significant for a number of reasons. Most importantly, the decision means that accused individuals in pre-trial solitary confinement in Alberta now have access to habeas corpus, the fastest way to challenge the legality of that confinement. So too do prisoners held in solitary confinement from the very beginning of their sentence. It is also significant because it criticizes the approach taken by the Court of Queen’s Bench to recent habeas corpus applications, including that of Mr. Wilcox. The appellate court found that the lower courts misunderstood precedents, cited cases for rules those cases did not support, ignored a 1985 Supreme Court of Canada decision, relied upon a case that had been overturned, found that an issue was not pled when it was, came to unreasonable conclusions, and made an unwarranted threat of personal costs against Mr. Wilcox’s counsel. In addition, the Court of Appeal clarified which habeas corpus pleadings are vexatious and abusive and which are not. It also vindicated the work of the Alberta Prison Justice Society and many of the individual prisoners’ rights lawyers in that group. Continue reading →

COVID-19 and the Emergencies Act (Canada)

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: COVID-19 and the Emergencies Act (Canada)

Legislation Commented On: Emergencies Act, RSC 1985, c 22 (4th Supp)

As we move deeper into the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada, provincial, territorial and municipal governments are now using legal rules to impose self-isolation and social distancing measures for the common good of preventing community transmission of the virus. The narrative in daily updates from government leaders and public health officials has shifted away from encouraging voluntary practices and more towards invoking command and control, as evidence mounts that voluntary suggestions are not being followed. Command and control is, however, largely going to be a general deterrence measure because actual enforcement in individual cases will be very difficult and resource intensive (hence why some jurisdictions, such as the State of Oregon, are encouraging citizens to help with enforcement by reporting violators of public health orders). All of this underscores the fact that we are truly in the midst of a socio-economic crisis, and has led to suggestions (e.g. see here and here) that federal cabinet issue a proclamation of national emergency under the Emergencies Act, RSC 1985, c 22 (4th Supp) and exercise the powers granted thereunder. Continue reading →

What is the Threshold for Entrapment?

By: Kenryo Mizutani

PDF Version: What is the Threshold for Entrapment?

Case Commented On: R v Turgeon-Myers, 2019 ABQB 493

In the heist film “Entrapment,” Mac, a professional thief (played by Sean Connery), says, “I don’t like surprises.” Gin, an undercover agent pretending to be a thief herself (played by Catherine Zeta-Jones), replies: “Trust me, there won’t be any.” Mac then replies: “Trust me, there always are surprises.” And there always are surprises.

At first glance, R v Turgeon-Myers, 2019 ABQB 493, may seem like a case about entrapment. Yet upon closer examination, a careful reader may be surprised to learn that there is an evidentiary issue beneath the issue of entrapment. Similar to my earlier blog article about the informant privilege, Turgeon-Myers involved a police informant. This informant provided the police with information about drug trafficking, and the police subsequently conducted an undercover operation to make an arrest. The accused, while initially admitting guilt, applied for a stay of proceedings on the basis of entrapment. Continue reading →