Category: Constitutional Page 13 of 71

Decision Commented On: Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2020 ABCA 74

Last month, the Alberta Court of Appeal released its decision in Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2020 ABCA 74, Alberta’s challenge to the constitutionality of the federal government’s Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, SC 2018, c 12 (GGPPA). Writing for a majority of three judges, Chief Justice Catherine Fraser concluded that the GGPPAcould not be upheld on the basis of Parliament’s residual power over matters of “peace, order, and good government” (POGG), nor any other potentially relevant federal head of power. Concurring in the result but not the analysis, Justice Wakeling also held that the GGPPA was unconstitutional. Justice Feehan, dissenting, would have upheld the law on the basis of POGG, and the “national concern” branch of that power in particular. The Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision thus stands in contrast to the earlier decisions of the Courts of Appeal of both Saskatchewan (Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act 2019 SKCA 40) (Saskatchewan Reference) and Ontario (Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2019 ONCA 544) (Ontario Reference), where a majority of judges in each court upheld the law as a valid exercise of the national concern branch of the POGG power.

Alberta Court of Appeal Concludes that University of Alberta is Subject to the Charter

By Linda McKay-Panos

On February 25, 2020

In Constitutional

By: Linda McKay-Panos

PDF Version: Alberta Court of Appeal Concludes that University of Alberta is Subject to the Charter

Decision Commented On: UAlberta Pro-Life v Governors of the University of Alberta, 2020 ABCA 1 (CanLII)

Once again, Alberta courts have been asked to address whether and when the Charter applies to activities at universities. There have been several ABlawg posts in the last few years that indicate there are two conflicting lines of cases across Canada. See: Context is Everything When it Comes to Charter Application to Universities, BCCA Unfortunately Chooses Not to Follow Alberta’s Lead on the Issue of Whether the Charter Applies to Universities; Does the Charter Apply to Universities? Pridgen Distinguished in U Vic Case; Face-ing the Charter’s Application on University Campuses; University Campus is not Charter-Free; and Freedom of Expression, Universities and Anti-Choice Protests.

Whose Sovereignty is it Anyway? The Borders of Aboriginal Rights along the Sovereign Borders of Canada

By Scott Carrière

On January 20, 2020

In Aboriginal, Constitutional

By: Scott Carrière

PDF Version: Whose Sovereignty is it Anyway? The Borders of Aboriginal Rights along the Sovereign Borders of Canada

Case Commented On: R v Desautel, 2019 BCCA 151 (CanLII)

On October 24, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear the Crown’s appeal from the British Columbia Court of Appeal’s decision in R v Desautel, 2019 BCCA 151 (CanLII) (Desautel). The Crown characterized the case as one of national significance, and the country’s highest court has decided to hearthe case despite Desautel’s unanimous three-judge decision. It is difficult to disagree; the case raises issues surrounding the role of Canadian sovereignty in the application of Aboriginal rights and the guarantees of section 35 of The Constitution Act, 1982. Sovereignty inherently implicates all Canadians, thus the Court of Appeal’s reasoning deserves careful scrutiny on this matter.

In Desautel, the Court of Appeal upheld the acquittal of Richard Desautel for hunting without a licence contrary to the Wildlife Act, RSBC 1996, c 488. It did so by affirming his section 35 Aboriginal right to hunt in an area in southeastern British Columbia, having satisfied the test for such rights set down by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Van der Peet, 1996 CanLII 216 (SCC). Desautel, however, is an American; he has never lived in British Columbia, nor is he a Canadian citizen. He is a member of the Lakes Tribe of the Colville Confederated Tribes (CCT) living on the Colville Indian Reserve in Washington (Desautel at paras 4 – 5). The basis for the rights claim was CCT’s status as successor to the Sinixt, a people whose traditional territory straddled the Canada-US border and who crossed the border frequently even into the 20^th century. The case therefore turned on whether section 35 could apply to non-Canadians and how to reconcile the assertion of sovereignty in the context of modern borders (Desautel at para 3).

This post will examine the British Columbia Court of Appeal’s analysis of the interplay of Canadian sovereignty and Aboriginal rights that arose in Desautel. It will not attempt to predict how the Supreme Court of Canada may approach the Crown’s appeal, but will reflect on ambiguities not addressed by British Columbia’s top court and how they might play out in Alberta and elsewhere in Canada.

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.

Category: Constitutional Page 13 of 71

Alberta Court of Appeal Opines That Federal Carbon Pricing Legislation Unconstitutional

Alberta Court of Appeal Concludes that University of Alberta is Subject to the Charter

Whose Sovereignty is it Anyway? The Borders of Aboriginal Rights along the Sovereign Borders of Canada

The Alberta Inquiry and Freedom of Expression

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