March 8 is International Women’s Day, and Calgary law firm Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer marked the occasion with a luncheon highlighting the work of the Equality Effect. The Equality Effect – or E2 – is an international network of human rights advocates (including community members, artists, musicians, film makers, health care workers, journalists, lawyers, academics, students, judges and Parliamentarians), primarily from Canada, Ghana, Kenya and Malawi, who are working to improve the lives of women and girls using human rights law. Fiona Sampson, E2’s Executive Director, spoke at the luncheon about the 160 Girls Project, a legal initiative aimed at forcing Kenyan authorities to protect girls in Kenya from sexual violence. I am part of the vast volunteer legal team that is working on this project, which includes students from across the country, as well as lawyers and activists from the Equality Effect’s partner countries. Also attending the luncheon were U of C law students Gabrielle Motuz, Amanda Winters, and Meghan Tonner, all of whom have done volunteer research for the Equality Effect (along with many more student volunteers from U of C who could not attend or who have graduated).
Category: Constitutional Page 52 of 71
PDF version: I Fought the Law: Civil Disobedience and the Law in Canada
Cases commented on: Calgary (City) v Bullock (Occupy Calgary), 2011 ABQB 764;
Batty v City of Toronto, 2011 ONSC 6862; R v SA, 2011 ABPC 269; R v Charlebois, 2011 ABPC 238, etc.
On February 1, 2012, I participated in a public forum entitled “Civil Disobedience: Concept, Law and Practice” organized by the Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership. This post is an elaboration of my remarks at the forum on how civil disobedience is handled under Canadian law. I will review some recent cases on civil disobedience, including the Occupy litigation, to examine issues such as whether civil disobedience may be protected under the Charter, and if not, what sorts of sanctions protestors might expect to face.
By: Linda McKay-Panos
PDF Version: British Columbia Supreme Court Releases Reference Decision on Polygamy – One Alberta Connection
Case Commented On: Reference re: Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada, 2011 BCSC 1588
In 2005, Brian Seaman, Melissa Luhtanen and I, on behalf of the Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre (ACLRC), were engaged by Status of Women Canada to research and comment on specific issues with regard to Criminal Code section 293 (anti-polygamy provision). Our conclusions may have been surprising to some people because it appeared that we erred on the side of equality at the expense of civil liberties. However, the recent British Columbia Supreme Court (BCSC) decision, at least temporarily, as it may be overruled on appeal, seems to have vindicated our position. Looking at the list of intervenors (11 of them) and the length of the judgment itself, it seems that the Court dealt with the issues in a comprehensive manner.
Legislation considered: Bill C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits (“Senate Reform Act”), 41st Parliament, 1st Session
After a very long journey, Canadians may be reaching the end of the long road to Senate reform. In the recently introduced Senate Reform Act the federal government is proposing a framework for electing senate nominees, and proposing to significantly reduce Senator term limits. Questions have been raised about Parliament’s unilateral ability to effect these reforms without provincial consent. This comment will explore the constitutional validity of the Senate Reform Act in terms of Parliament’s jurisdiction to unilaterally amend the Canadian Constitution. It will be suggested that while the proposed term limit is likely constitutionally valid, the proposed framework and legal obligation of the Prime Minister to consider elected Senate nominees is beyond Parliament’s sole power.
By: Melissa Luhtanen
PDF Version: Non-biological Father from Separated Same-Sex Couple Declared a Legal Parent
Case Commented On: D.W.H. v D.J.R., 2011 ABQB 608
Background
Mr. H. and Mr. R. lived together as partners and planned to have a baby through a surrogate mother. Mr. R’s sperm was used to conceive the baby, S, with Ms. D as the surrogate mother. Ms. D lived with the two fathers and Mr. R when the baby was first born. After that, the baby lived with the two male partners and visited the surrogate mother once or twice a week. The couple separated when S was 3 years old and Mr. H. applied for access. Madame Justice Eidsvik in D.W.H. v D.J.R., 2009 ABQB 438 found that the child had a mother (who was the surrogate), but no father who could be recognized in law (see my previous post “Gay fathers not seen as a parental unit under the Family Law Act“). Mr. H was given access until November 2007 when, based on a parenting assessment, contact was discontinued. Mr. H.’s relationship with S has since almost completely ceased. Mr. H. applied for guardianship but his application was opposed.