Category Archives: Constitutional

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

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. Continue reading →

Original Gender: Mobilizing Charter Section 28 to Defend Trans Rights in Saskatchewan

By: Charlotte Dalwood

Matter Considered: Use of Preferred First Name and Pronouns by Students, Government of Saskatchewan

PDF Version: Original Gender: Mobilizing Charter Section 28 to Defend Trans Rights in Saskatchewan

On October 10, 2023, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe wants his government to invoke the notwithstanding clause in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to shield his anti-trans name and pronoun policy from Charter scrutiny.

The policy in question, announced in August, requires Saskatchewan students under the age of 16 to obtain parental permission before changing their names and pronouns at school. Regina-based organization UR Pride is challenging that policy as contrary to sections 7 and 15(1) of the Charter. That case will be argued in November. Last week, the Court of King’s Bench of Saskatchewan granted an injunction to prevent the policy from going into effect until the Charter challenge is heard. Continue reading →

Webber Academy II: Balancing Religious Discrimination and Freedom from Religion in the Provision of Educational Services

By: Howard Kislowicz and Jennifer Koshan

Case Commented On: Webber Academy Foundation v Alberta (Human Rights Commission), 2023 ABCA 194 (CanLII) (Webber Academy II)

PDF Version: Webber Academy II: Balancing Religious Discrimination and Freedom from Religion in the Provision of Educational Services

In the 2011-12 school year, Sarmad Amir and Naman Siddique (“the Students”) were denied prayer space at Webber Academy, where they had recently enrolled as grade 9/10 students. As observant Sunni Muslims, they prayed five times a day, which included school hours at some times of the year. Staff initially allowed the Students to pray in empty offices or classrooms; however, when the head of Webber Academy, Dr. Neil Webber, became aware of the situation, he informed the Students’ parents that prayers could only be performed off campus, or on campus without bowing or kneeling. The explanation was that Webber Academy did not provide physical accommodations for students of other religions to practice their faith, and that the Academy is a non-denominational school. The Students’ parents were also advised that because they had not followed the school’s policies, the Students would not be enrolled for the following year. Continue reading →

Ethics Commissioner Confirms that Premier Danielle Smith Breached the Conflicts of Interest Act – and a Fundamental Principle of Our Democracy

By: Nigel Bankes, Jennifer Koshan, and Martin Olszynski

Matter commented on: Office of the Ethics Commissioner, Report of Findings and Recommendations into allegations involving Hon. Danielle Smith, Member for Brooks-Medicine Hat, Premier of Alberta, May 17, 2023

PDF Version: Ethics Commissioner Confirms that Premier Danielle Smith Breached the Conflicts of Interest Act – and a Fundamental Principle of Our Democracy

In early January of this year, Premier Danielle Smith participated in a lengthy telephone conversation with Pastor Artur Pawlowski, who was at that time facing criminal charges and charges under the provincial Critical Infrastructure Defence Act, SA 2020, c C-32.7 in relation to the Coutts blockade. Artur Pawlowski recorded a video of that call that subsequently became available to the public. That recording triggered complaints to the Ethics Commissioner under the Conflicts of Interest Act, RSA 2000, c C-23 (COIA) by a private citizen and by Irfan Sabir, MLA for Calgary-Bhullar-McCall and NDP Justice Critic. Continue reading →

Premier Danielle Smith and the (Non) Observance of Constitutional Conventions

By: Nigel Bankes and Jennifer Koshan

Matter Commented On: Premier Smith’s interactions with the Department of Justice in the matter of Artur Pawlowski

PDF Version: Premier Danielle Smith and the (Non) Observance of Constitutional Conventions

For the past several weeks, news outlets have been reporting on Premier Danielle Smith’s involvement in prosecutions for COVID-19 and Coutts border blockade related offences. Most recently, a video was leaked of Premier Smith’s conversation with Artur Pawlowski, who is facing criminal charges for the Coutts blockade that Smith said she would discuss with Justice officials. One issue that has not squarely been addressed is the significance of whether Premier Smith actually spoke to prosecutors in Pawlowski’s case, or whether she just spoke to officials within the Department of Justice, including the Deputy Attorney General, about the case.  The Premier’s back and forth on who she contacted suggests she believes this distinction matters, such that if she “only” did the latter she did not breach any constitutional convention relating to prosecutorial independence. In our view this is incorrect. Any contact by the Premier with the Department of Justice in relation to any particular case or class of cases is inconsistent with the constitutional conventions associated with the prosecution of criminal charges. These constitutional conventions are essential elements of the rule of law, the separation of powers, and ideas of equality before the law. Continue reading →