Category: Constitutional Page 23 of 74

TMX v Burnaby: When Do Delays by a Municipal (or Provincial) Permitting Authority Trigger Paramountcy and Interjurisdictional Immunity?

On January 24, 2018

In Constitutional, Municipal Law, Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes and Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: TMX v Burnaby: When Do Delays by a Municipal (or Provincial) Permitting Authority Trigger Paramountcy and Interjurisdictional Immunity?

Decision Commented On: National Energy Board, Reasons for Decision (18 January 2018) in support of Order MO-057-2017 (6 December 2017) re Trans Mountain Expansion Project

The National Energy Board (NEB) has now issued its reasons for decision for an Order that it issued in December 2017 allowing Trans Mountain to proceed with certain activities associated with the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMX) without having first complied with bylaw requirements of the City of Burnaby.

R v EJB: Another Unconstitutional Mandatory Minimum Sentence

By Daphne Wang

On January 5, 2018

In Constitutional, Criminal

By: Daphne Wang

PDF Version: R v EJB: Another Unconstitutional Mandatory Minimum Sentence

Case Commented On: R v EJB, 2017 ABQB 726 (CanLII)

In a previous post, Professor Erin Sheley commented that R v Nur, 2015 SCC 15 (CanLII), may have started a “widespread dismantling of the Criminal Code’s policy of gun-related mandatory minimums.” Since Nur, constitutional challenges to mandatory minimums have reached beyond gun-related crimes. The Supreme Court of Canada in R v Lloyd, 2016 SCC 13 (CanLII), held the one-year mandatory minimum for drug trafficking under s 5(3)(a)(i)(D) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC 1996 c 19, to be unconstitutional (at para 56). By doing so, the SCC left other offences with mandatory minimums vulnerable to constitutional challenge under s 12 of the Charter. Following Lloyd, the recent Court of Queen’s Bench decision R v EJB found the one-year mandatory minimum for sexual exploitation under s 153(1.1)(a) of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, to be of no force or effect (at para 90).

Yet Another Development in the Saga of Random Drug and Alcohol Testing at Suncor

By Linda McKay-Panos

On January 3, 2018

In Constitutional, Labour/Employment

By: Linda McKay-Panos

PDF Version: Yet Another Development in the Saga of Random Drug and Alcohol Testing at Suncor

Case Commented On: Unifor, Local 707A v Suncor Energy Inc, 2017 ABQB 752 (CanLII)

Recently, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench (per Justice R. Paul Belzil) granted Unifor, Local 707A (the Union) an interim injunction prohibiting Suncor Energy Inc (Suncor) from implementing its random drug and alcohol testing policy pending either a successful application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada or, failing that, the parties holding a fresh arbitration hearing in early 2018.

Ktunaxa Nation: On the “Spiritual Focal Point of Worship” Test

By Howard Kislowicz

On November 7, 2017

In Aboriginal, Constitutional

By: Howard Kislowicz and Senwung Luk

PDF Version: Ktunaxa Nation: On the “Spiritual Focal Point of Worship” Test

Case Commented On: Ktunaxa Nation v British Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations), 2017 SCC 54 (CanLII)

On 2 November 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its long awaited decision in Ktunaxa Nation. As noted by David Laidlaw in the initial post concerning Ktunaxa Nation, the decision raised significant issues surrounding the scope of religious freedom and its particular application to Indigenous groups, the Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate Indigenous groups, and administrative law more generally. In this blog post, we focus on the first issue: what this case says and means for religious freedom claims.

Silencing the Qat’muk Grizzly Bear Spirit

By David Laidlaw

On November 6, 2017

In Aboriginal, Constitutional

By: David Laidlaw

PDF Version: Silencing the Qat’muk Grizzly Bear Spirit

Case Commented On: Ktunaxa Nation v British Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations), 2017 SCC 54 (CanLII)

In the course of reading the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Ktunaxa Nation v British Columbia, I was struck by the number (13) of authorized non-party intervenors. There is a central omission – who speaks for Qat’muk’s Grizzly Bear Spirit?

The Appellant Ktunaxa Nation described the Qat’muk region as a place of spiritual significance for them. As the Supreme Court said, “Notably, it is home to an important population of grizzly bears and to Grizzly Bear Spirit, or K?aw?a Tuk?u?ak?is, ‘a principal spirit within Ktunaxa religious beliefs and cosmology’” at paragraph 5 in the Majority Decision authored by Chief Justice McLachlin and Malcolm Rowe JJ, concurred in by Justices Abella, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon, and Brown (Majority Decision).