Category: Constitutional Page 4 of 71

By: Jennifer Koshan

Policy Proposal Commented On: United Conservative Party, Annual General Meeting Policy and Governance Resolutions, Policy Resolution 8 (November 2023)

PDF Version: Gender-Affirming Names and Pronouns, Parental Control, and Family Violence

Content Warning: This post contains descriptions of family violence and gender identity abuse.

At the United Conservative Party (UCP)’s recent annual general meeting, party members voted on a number of policy proposals. Policy Resolution 8 was “almost unanimously” supported, and would “[r]equire Teachers, Schools, and School Boards to obtain the written consent of the parent/guardian of a student under the age of 16 prior to changing the name and/or pronouns used by the student” (United Conservative Party, Annual General Meeting Policy and Governance Resolutions at 38 (UCP Resolutions)). In a similar vein, Policy Resolution 17 would require the government to “[s]upport a comprehensive Bill of Parental Rights which ensures that all legislation will recognize and support parents’ rights to be informed of and in charge of all decisions to do with all services paid for by the province, including education and health care” (UCP Resolutions at 49). The Minister of Education, Demetrios Nicolaides, recently stated that the government is having an “active conversation” about this matter.

Religious Freedom and the Oath to the Sovereign

By Howard Kislowicz

On November 22, 2023

In Constitutional

By: Howard Kislowicz

Case Commented On: Wirring v Law Society of Alberta, 2023 ABKB 580 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Religious Freedom and the Oath to the Sovereign

In Wirring v Law Society of Alberta, 2023 ABKB 580 (CanLII), Justice Barbara Johnston for the Alberta Court of King’s Bench granted summary judgment in favour of His Majesty the King in Right of Alberta. The case concerns the objections of Prabjot Singh Wirring to “the portion of the oath mandated by the Legal Profession Act… as set out in the Oaths of Office Act… which includes an oath of allegiance to the sovereign” (at para 1). A person must take the oath to be admitted to the Law Society of Alberta and be entitled to practice law in Alberta. Wirring, who had “obtained a law degree from Dalhousie University and completed his articles” (at para 5) claimed that taking the oath violated his right to freedom of conscience and religion and his right to equality, as protected by ss 2(a) and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Wirring said that, as an Amritdhari Sikh, “oath of allegiance to the Queen is incompatible with the oath he has sworn to Akal Purakh, [the divine being in the Sikh tradition]” (at para 8).

Not Plenary, but Not Nothing Either: Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Supreme Court Opinion on the (un)Constitutionality of the Federal Impact Assessment Regime

By David V Wright

On November 10, 2023

In Constitutional, Environmental, Supreme Court of Canada

By: David V. Wright

Case Commented On: Reference re Impact Assessment Act, 2023 SCC 23 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Not Plenary, but Not Nothing Either: Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Supreme Court Opinion on the (un)Constitutionality of the Federal Impact Assessment Regime

The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) recently released its opinion on the constitutionality of the federal impact assessment (IA) regime. In a 5:2 majority opinion, Chief Justice Richard Wagner concluded that much of the scheme is unconstitutional for projects falling primarily within provincial jurisdiction. ABlawg has published initial reflections (see here and here), as well as a primer.

One aspect of the majority opinion and any forthcoming legislative amendments that is in need of further attention is the Court’s analysis of greenhouse gas emissions. This post focuses on that aspect. In short, the majority reiterated that there is no plenary federal power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, and found that Canada had not adequately made the legal argument to support inclusion of a designated project’s greenhouse gas emissions as a basis for triggering the Impact Assessment Act, SC 2019, c 28, s 1 (IAA) or for making final decisions. However, the majority left the door open on this aspect, while also clarifying that there are no constitutional constraints during the assessment phase (i.e. information gathering phase) of the federal process. At the present juncture, the SCC opinion provides some valuable additional clarity regarding greenhouse gas emissions, but very far from total clarity. Uncertainty remains, and that is unfortunate. In the following discussion, I lay out what the majority said and did not say on greenhouse gas emissions, what that means, and what’s next.

The Word “Exclusive” Does Not Confer a Constitutional Monopoly, Nor a Right to Develop Provincial Resource Projects

By Nigel Bankes

On November 1, 2023

In Constitutional, Environmental, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Nigel Bankes and Andrew Leach

Decision Commented On: Reference re Impact Assessment Act, 2023 SCC 23 (CanLII)

PDF Version: The Word “Exclusive” Does Not Confer a Constitutional Monopoly, Nor a Right to Develop Provincial Resource Projects

The majority opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Reference re Impact Assessment Act, 2023 SCC 23 (CanLII) (IAA Reference) concludes that the federal government has arrogated to itself decision-making powers that properly belong to provincial governments; powers, that is, with respect to resource projects and other works and undertakings located entirely within a province (for short, “provincial resource projects”). (For an overview of the IAA Reference see Olszynski et al, “Wait, What!? What the Supreme Court Actually Said in the IAA Reference”.) Given that conclusion, it is not surprising that Premier Danielle Smith, as well as former premier Jason Kenney, who initiated the Reference, have celebrated the decision. But in doing so they have both significantly overstated the majority’s conclusions by suggesting that the majority endorsed a strong theory of exclusive provincial jurisdiction over provincial resource projects. Premier Smith, echoing language in the Alberta Court of Appeal majority opinion in the IAA Reference (which we commented on here), would extend this interpretation further to a right of development and to a form of interjurisdictional immunity for projects falling outside the exceptions in section 92(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867. We provide concrete examples of Premier Smith’s use of the word “exclusive” (or its synonyms) and references to a “right to develop” from the Premier’s press conference on the IAA Reference decision and an interview prior to the decision in Appendix A to this post, and a link to the views of the Hon. Jason Kenney in Appendix B.

Wait, What!? What the Supreme Court Actually Said in the IAA Reference

By Martin Olszynski

On October 16, 2023

In Constitutional, Environmental, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Martin Olszynski, Nigel Bankes, and David Wright

Case Commented On: Reference re Impact Assessment Act, 2023 SCC 23 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Wait, What!? What the Supreme Court Actually Said in the IAA Reference

This past Friday, October 13, the Supreme Court of Canada released its opinion in Reference re Impact Assessment Act, 2023 SCC 23 (CanLII) (IAA Reference). Writing for a 5:2 majority (Justices Mahmud Jamal and Andromache Karakatsanis dissenting), Chief Justice Richard Wagner held that what is known as the “designated project” (or “major project” in colloquial terms) review scheme of the Impact Assessment Act, SC 2019, c 28, s 1 (“IAA”) is unconstitutional. This post sets out what is, and is not, constitutional about the IAA regime. We begin by first clarifying the Act’s current legal status. We then set out the principles – post-IAA Reference – of federal and provincial jurisdiction over the environment generally, and then with respect to impact assessment specifically. This is followed by a discussion of the IAA’s specific constitutional defects as found by the majority, the implications of those defects, and their potential remedies. We conclude with some observations regarding the IAA Reference’s relevance to future constitutional battles over federal clean electricity regulations and an oil and gas greenhouse gas emissions cap.