Category: Constitutional Page 74 of 75

The Death of Constitutional Exemptions? Alberta RCMP Officer Sentenced to Mandatory Four Years for Manslaughter with a Firearm

The death of 23 year old Darren Varley in the custody of the RCMP in Pincher Creek made headlines in October 1999. Varley was shot by an RCMP officer, Constable Michael Ferguson, who was charged with second-degree murder but eventually convicted by a jury of the lesser offence of manslaughter after a four week trial in 2004 (2 earlier trials having resulted in hung juries). Justice G.C. Hawco of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench granted Ferguson a constitutional exemption from s. 236(a) of the Criminal Code, which imposed a mandatory minimum sentence of four years for manslaughter with a firearm, and granted a conditional sentence of two years less one day (2004 ABQB 928). The Crown appealed, and a majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal held that the mandatory minimum sentence could not be avoided (2006 ABCA 261). Constable Ferguson appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which dismissed his appeal on February 29, 2008.

Not on Their Backs: Cap on Damages for Soft Tissue Injuries Struck Down; Court Denies Stay of Remedy Pending Appeal

By Jennifer Koshan

On March 10, 2008

In Constitutional, Insurance Law

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: Not on Their Backs: Cap on Damages for Soft Tissue Injuries Struck Down; Court Denies Stay of Remedy Pending Appeal

Cases Commented On: Morrow v Zhang, 2008 ABQB 125, Morrow v Zhang and Pedersen v Thournout, 2008 ABQB 98

On February 8, 2008, Associate Chief Justice Neil Wittmann of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench struck down the $4000 cap on non-pecuniary damages for soft tissue injuries incurred in motor vehicle accidents. The cap was imposed in October 2004 via the Minor Injury Regulation, Alta. Reg. 123/2004 (“the MIR”). Justice Wittman’s decision quickly became an election issue, with leaders of Alberta’s major parties each staking out their territory on auto insurance. Premier Stelmach announced that the government would seek a stay of the ruling pending an appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal. Liberal leader Kevin Taft countered that a Liberal government would not appeal the decision, and NDP leader Brian Mason used the opportunity to advocate for a public auto insurance system. On February 25, 2008, Justice Wittmann denied the stay application. This means that his original ruling, which struck down the cap without providing time for the government to amend the MIR, takes immediate effect.

What does the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms have to do with Oil and Gas Development in Alberta?

By Nickie Nikolaou

On March 4, 2008

In Constitutional, Natural Resources

Cases Considered: Kelly v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), 2008 ABCA 52

PDF Version: What does the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms have to do with Oil and Gas Development in Alberta?

This is not the first time that section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter) has been raised on an application for leave to appeal a decision of Alberta’s Energy and Utilities Board (EUB). It is, however, the first time that a justice of the Court of Appeal has put the issue squarely before the court. Can the granting of a licence by the EUB (now the ERCB) for a particular oil and gas well violate rights protected by section 7 of the Charter? Is it possible that the environmental risks and hazards of a particular oil and gas operation may be such as to trigger the protection of section 7 of the Charter? Mr. Justice J.A. Berger has said that this is arguable. In doing so, he has placed some difficult issues, with potentially far-reaching consequences, before the Court.

Canada Safeway’s Charter Right to Freedom of Expression Not Violated by Privacy Legislation When it Reported Co-op Employee’s Unique Shopping Methods

By Linda McKay-Panos

On February 20, 2008

In Constitutional, Human Rights

Cases Considered: Canada Safeway Limited v. Shineton, 2007 ABQB 773

PDF Version: Canada Safeway’s Charter Right to Freedom of Expression Not Violated by Privacy Legislation When it Reported Co-op Employee’s Unique Shopping Methods

In a judicial review of a decision of Alberta’s Privacy Commissioner, Canada Safeway put forward a very interesting (yet ultimately unsuccessful) argument as a defence to a complaint that it breached a person’s privacy; Safeway argued that s. 7 (1)(d) of the Personal Information Protection Act (“PIPA”), S.A. 2003, c. P-6.5 violated its right to freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”) s. 2(b).

Offensive Publication Case Highlights the Tension Between Human Rights and Civil Liberties

By Linda McKay-Panos

On December 11, 2007

In Administrative Law, Constitutional, Human Rights

Case(s) Considered: Darren Lund v. Stephen Boissoin and the Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. (November 30, 2007, Alta. H.R.P.; Lori G. Andreachuk, Q.C., Panel Chair)

PDF Version: Offensive Publication Case Highlights the Tension Between Human Rights and Civil Liberties

In many circumstances, human rights and civil liberties principles are complementary. However, in some cases—such as those involving freedom of expression—they can conflict. In examining s. 3 of Alberta’s Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act (“HRCMA”), R.S.A. 2000, c. H-14, the tension between these two values is acute. A recent Alberta Human Rights Panel (“Panel”) decision illustrates how difficult it is to balance freedom of expression (supported byfreedom of religion) and freedom from discrimination in Alberta.