Category: Constitutional Page 24 of 71

Smoke and Mirrors? With Marihuana Legalization, Parliament Proposes to Drastically Expand Police Power

On April 21, 2017

By: Dylan Finlay

PDF Version: Smoke and Mirrors? With Marihuana Legalization, Parliament Proposes to Drastically Expand Police Power

Legislation Commented On: Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, 1st Session, 42^nd Parliament, 2017

Parliament is toting marihuana legalization as a necessary public safety measure. With this sentiment, Parliament is revisiting not only drug-impaired driving laws, but also alcohol-impaired driving laws. Part 2 of Bill C-46 would, if passed, allow police officers to demand that a driver provide breath samples without any suspicion that the individual had been drinking. The relevant section is reproduced below:

Mandatory alcohol screening

320.27 (2) If a peace officer has in his or her possession an approved screening device, the peace officer may, in the course of the lawful exercise of powers under an Act of Parliament or an Act of a provincial legislature or arising at common law, by demand, require the person who is operating a motor vehicle to immediately provide the samples of breath that, in the peace officer’s opinion, are necessary to enable a proper analysis to be made by means of that device and to accompany the peace officer for that purpose.

Parliament seeks the moral high ground in selling its proposed legislation to both the public and the judiciary. To the public, the Liberals hope to sway voters who find a ‘tough-on-crime’ agenda attractive – the same segment of the population that supports stiff mandatory minimum jail sentences. To be fair, as far as politics go, this strategy is sound; the segment of the population that supports legalization of marihuana because prohibition never made much sense to begin with will likely support the Bill no matter its complexities.

The judiciary will be harder to convince. Mandatory alcohol screening (as it is proposed by Bill C-46) violates ss 7 (the right to life, liberty and security of the person), 8 (the right against unreasonable search and seizure), 9 (the right not to be arbitrarily detained), and 10 (b) (the right to counsel on arrest or detention) of the Canadian Charter of the Rights and Freedoms (the Charter). Parliament must cast mandatory alcohol screening as a reasonable limit prescribed by law and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society to ‘save’ it under s 1 of the Charter.

The groundwork is being laid for such an argument. On CBC’s ‘The House,’ Justice Minister Wilson-Raybould stated: “I am confident [mandatory alcohol screening] will survive a constitutional challenge. It can be justified in terms of public safety, and safety on the roads, and preventing death” (April 13, 2017).

I do not share the Justice Minister’s confidence. Mandatory alcohol screening (as it is proposed) is a flagrant affront to Charter-values and Charter jurisprudence. The Supreme Court should not find such a law constitutional.

A constitutional battle lies ahead. This post will provide a summary of police procedure and the law as it relates to alcohol screening, present arguments for and against mandatory screening’s constitutionality, and ultimately conclude that mandatory alcohol screening is unconstitutional. For the purposes of this post, the focus will be on s 10(b) of the Charter, as this is the focus of the prevailing case law on alcohol screening generally.

Update on the Rights of Farm and Ranch Workers in Alberta

By Jennifer Koshan

On April 3, 2017

In Constitutional, Labour/Employment

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: Update on the Rights of Farm and Ranch Workers in Alberta

Legislation and Reports Commented on: Bill 6, The Enhanced Protection for Farm and Ranch Workers Act; Report to Ministers – Technical Working Group: Employment Standards Code; Report to Ministers – Technical Working Group: Labour Relations Code

Bill 6, The Enhanced Protection for Farm and Ranch Workers Act, made amendments removing the exclusion of farm and ranch workers from Alberta’s labour and employment legislation in January 2016, with varying timelines for implementation (for earlier posts on Bill 6 see here and here). Some of those timelines allowed for a consultation process to work through the details for including these workers in the relevant legislation. Technical working groups (TWGs) were established to make recommendations regarding the inclusion of farm and ranch workers in the Employment Standards Code, RSA 2000, c E-9, Labour Relations Code, RSA 2000, c L-1, and Occupational Health and Safety Act, RSA 2000, c O-2. Two of the TWGs have now reported, and this post will provide a brief summary of those reports, as well as the current state of inclusion / exclusion of farm and ranch workers in the legislation.

As a result of Bill 6, farm and ranch workers are now included in the Workers’ Compensation Act, RSA 2000, c W-15 (WCA), when they do paid work for farm or ranch employers. Unpaid workers, family members and children are not covered under the WCA unless their employer opts in. Recent statistics show that since Bill 6 came into force, 763 claims for workers compensation from agricultural workers have been processed, including 407 that involved a disabling injury.

An Update on The Right to Trial Within a Reasonable Time

By Drew Yewchuk

On March 2, 2017

In Constitutional, Criminal

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: An Update on The Right to Trial Within a Reasonable Time

Cases Commented On: R v Lam, 2016 ABQB 489 (CanLII); R v Regan, 2016 ABQB 561 (CanLII); R v Lavoie, 2017 ABQB 66 (CanLII)

It has been about 8 months since the Supreme Court released R v Jordan, 2016 SCC 27 (CanLII) and overhauled how courts deal with applications under section 11(b) of the Charter, the right “to be tried within a reasonable time”. I described the new framework in an earlier post. In short, Jordan established presumptive ceilings for unreasonable delay (minus defence delays and exceptional circumstances) between charges being laid and the end of trial. The ceilings are 18 months for charges going to trial in provincial court and 30 months for charges going to superior court, subject to a flexible transitional approach for cases that were already in the system when Jordan was decided. Since the release of Jordan there have been 11 reported decisions in Alberta posted to CanLII for applications for stays under the new framework. This post discusses three of those decisions that addressed interesting aspects of the new framework.

Supreme Court of Canada Protects Freedom of Expression of Individuals During Election Campaigns

By Linda McKay-Panos

On March 1, 2017

In Constitutional, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Linda McKay-Panos

PDF Version: Supreme Court of Canada Protects Freedom of Expression of Individuals During Election Campaigns

Case Commented On: BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association v British Columbia (Attorney General) 2017 SCC 6 (CanLII)

In this case, which involves political speech that is at the very core of protected expression in Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada’s (SCC) ruling doesn’t turn on lofty values as much as it relies on statutory interpretation. It also provides some interesting discussion on the amount of evidence the government must provide in order to defend a violation of Charter section 2(b) under Charter section 1 in the election context.

The British Columbia Freedom of Information and Privacy Association (Association) challenged British Columbia’s Election Act, RSBC 1996, c 106, section 239, which requires registration with the Chief Electoral Officer by individuals or organizations who wish to “sponsor election advertising.” The SCC had previously upheld similar election registration legislation applying to third parties who spent at least $500 on election advertising (see, for example Harper v Canada (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 33, [2004] 1 SCR 827 (CanLII)(Harper)).

Alberta Agrees to Amend Human Rights Legislation to Expand Prohibitions Against Age Discrimination

By Jennifer Koshan

On February 7, 2017

In Constitutional, Human Rights, Youth and the Law

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: Alberta Agrees to Amend Human Rights Legislation to Expand Prohibitions Against Age Discrimination

Case Commented On: Ruth Maria Adria v Attorney General of Alberta, Court File No 1603 05013, Consent Order filed 13 January 2017

Human rights legislation exists in every province and territory in Canada, and at the federal level, but protection against discrimination varies amongst jurisdictions with respect to what grounds and areas are protected. Until recently, the Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c A-25.5, only protected against age discrimination in the areas of publications and notices (section 3), employment practices and advertisements (sections 7 and 8), and membership in a trade union, employers’ organization or occupational association (section 9). Age was not a protected ground in relation to the provision of goods, services, accommodation or facilities customarily available to the public (section 4), or in relation to tenancies (section 5).

In January 2017, the Alberta government agreed to expand the Alberta Human Rights Act to include age as a protected ground under sections 4 and 5. This development was prompted by an application brought in March 2016 by Ruth Maria Adria under section 15 of the Charter, the constitutional equality rights guarantee, to have the omission of age declared unconstitutional and to have age read in to these sections.