Category: Constitutional Page 13 of 72

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.

What is the Threshold for Entrapment?

By KMizutani

On March 18, 2020

In Constitutional, Criminal

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.

Alberta Court of Appeal Opines That Federal Carbon Pricing Legislation Unconstitutional

By Martin Olszynski

On March 17, 2020

In Constitutional, Energy, Oil & Gas

By: Martin Olszynski, Nigel Bankes and Andrew Leach

PDF Version: Alberta Court of Appeal Opines That Federal Carbon Pricing Legislation Unconstitutional

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.

Category: Constitutional Page 13 of 72

COVID-19 and the Emergencies Act (Canada)

What is the Threshold for Entrapment?

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