Category: Constitutional Page 35 of 71

By: Kathleen Mahoney

PDF Version: Keeping Faith Out of the Public Square: Is Calgary City Hall Offside?

Case Commented On: Mouvement laïque québécois v Saguenay (City), 2015 SCC 16

O God, author of all wisdom, knowledge and understanding. We ask Thy guidance in our consultations to the end that truth and justice may prevail, in all our judgments. Amen. (Prayer recited at Calgary City Council meetings)

What is wrong with this invocation? The Supreme Court of Canada would say nothing, as long as it is not invoked at City Hall to open meetings. In its recent decision in Mouvement laïque québécois v Saguenay (City), 2015 SCC 16 [Saguenay], the Court seems to have closed all the doors to future prospects of religious faith playing a role in the public square. Calgary’s mayor Naheed Nenshi disagrees, saying that there is room in the public square for faith, and that Calgary City Hall will explore ways of getting around the ruling. (Calgary Herald, April 15, 2015). Will this be possible? Constitutionally speaking, it will be very difficult.

May Provinces (or States) Limit Imports on the Basis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Elsewhere?

By James Coleman

On April 16, 2015

In Climate Change, Constitutional

By: James Coleman & Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: May Provinces (or States) Limit Imports on the Basis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Elsewhere?

Report Commented On: Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission, The Way Forward

Last week, a group of economists known as “Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission” issued a much-discussed report that urged Canada’s individual provinces to drive Canadian climate policy by adopting their own carbon pricing schemes. But the report barely touched on one of the key challenges for provincial or state regulation without the support of the national government: what may places that price carbon do to avoid losing industry to places that don’t?

Can the Homeless Find Shelter in the Courts?

By Joshua Sealy-Harrington

On April 2, 2015

In Constitutional

By: Joshua-Sealy Harrington

PDF Version: Can the Homeless Find Shelter in the Courts?

Case Commented On: Tanudjaja v Canada (Attorney General), 2014 ONCA 852

Late in 2014, the Ontario Court of Appeal considered a Charter challenge to provincial and federal (in)activity allegedly contributing to homelessness and inadequate housing (Tanudjaja v Canada (Attorney General), 2014 ONCA 852 (“Tanudjaja CA”)). The appellants sought to overturn a motion judge’s decision striking their application at the pleadings stage (Tanudjaja v Canada (Attorney General), 2013 ONSC 5410 (“Tanudjaja SC”)). A majority of the Court of Appeal (the “Majority”) upheld the motion judge, while the dissenting judgment (the “Dissent”) would have overturned the motion judge and allowed the Charter challenge to proceed to trial. This comment analyzes both judgments and concludes that the Dissent provides a more compelling analysis of the governing legal principles and their application in this case.

Constitutional Concerns about Being “In the Company” of a Gang-Affiliate

By Sarah Burton

On March 25, 2015

In Constitutional

By: Sarah Burton

PDF Version: Constitutional Concerns about Being “In the Company” of a Gang-Affiliate

Legislation Commented On: Gaming and Liquor Act, RSA 2000, c G-1

Six years ago, the Province of Alberta amended the Gaming and Liquor Act, RSA 2000, c G-1 as part of a broader policy to crack down on gang related activity. Section 69.1 of the Act allows police officers to “exclude or remove from licensed premises any person the police officer believes to be associated with a gang.” Almost immediately, the amendment raised a number of serious constitutional concerns (see here). Political pressure to shut down gangs, however, proved more powerful than any protest from civil libertarians and Charter enthusiasts. Despite the multitude of objections, the amendment came into effect and has been in force since 2009.

Given this history, it strikes me as odd that the provision has never been considered (or even mentioned) in any reported decision. Why is that? Perhaps the law is not being used at all. Maybe persons who resist are being charged under different provisions, or charges are being dropped before trial. It is difficult to fill in the reasons for a gap in judicial consideration, but given the constitutional concerns that were immediately evident, the absence of any case law is a puzzling cause for concern.

This post is intended to circle back on the “gangbuster” amendment to explore what has transpired since its enactment. It also reconsiders and fleshes out questions about the amendment’s constitutionality.

The Supreme Court’s New Constitutional Decisions and the Rights of Farm Workers in Alberta

By Jennifer Koshan

On March 3, 2015

In Constitutional, Labour/Employment

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: The Supreme Court’s New Constitutional Decisions and the Rights of Farm Workers in Alberta

Cases Commented On: Mounted Police Association of Ontario v Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 1 (CanLII); Meredith v Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 2 (CanLII); Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan, 2015 SCC 4 (CanLII); Carter v Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5 (CanLII)

As I was saying to my constitutional law students the other day, the first few weeks of 2015 have been remarkable for the sheer number of Charter decisions released by the Supreme Court of Canada, including several that have overturned previous decisions in important ways. Of the eight SCC decisions released to date in 2015, five are major Charter rulings. Several of these decisions have implications for a project on the rights of farm workers that I worked on with a group of constitutional clinical students in the winter of 2014. The students’ posts on the constitutionality of excluding farm workers from labour and employment legislation are available here, here, here and here. In this post, I will outline the impact these recent Charter decisions have on the students’ arguments. In a nutshell, they make the claims of farm workers for legislative protection even stronger, refuting the argument of Premier Jim Prentice that we need “more research and debate” before taking action on these unconstitutional exclusions.