Category: Constitutional Page 55 of 74

Decision considered: Federal government proposal to remove habitat protection from the Fisheries Act.

The federal government of Canada proposes to remove the habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act RSC 2000, c F-14, s 35. Countless Canadians have vigorously spoken out against this proposal because removing these provisions would be a critical and fundamental change not only to federal legislative approach, but also to the management, protection, and well-being of fisheries in Canada.

The Equality Effect: Recognizing 160 Girls on International Women’s Day

By Jennifer Koshan

On March 8, 2012

In Constitutional, Human Rights, State Responses to Violence

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).

I Fought the Law: Civil Disobedience and the Law in Canada

By Jennifer Koshan

On February 27, 2012

In Constitutional, Human Rights, Municipal Law

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.

British Columbia Supreme Court Releases Reference Decision on Polygamy – One Alberta Connection

By Linda McKay-Panos

On February 15, 2012

In Constitutional, Criminal, Family

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.

Senate Reform on the Horizon: Does the Parliament of Canada have the power to unilaterally change the terms and selection method of Senators?

By Alastair MacKinnon

On February 6, 2012

In Constitutional

PDF version: Senate Reform on the Horizon: Does the Parliament of Canada have the power to unilaterally change the terms and selection method of Senators?

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.

Category: Constitutional Page 55 of 74

Decapitating the Fisheries Act by removing the HADD: A Critique of the Rationale

The Equality Effect: Recognizing 160 Girls on International Women’s Day

I Fought the Law: Civil Disobedience and the Law in Canada

British Columbia Supreme Court Releases Reference Decision on Polygamy – One Alberta Connection

Senate Reform on the Horizon: Does the Parliament of Canada have the power to unilaterally change the terms and selection method of Senators?