University of Calgary Faculty of Law ABLawg.ca logo over mountains

Category: Constitutional Page 8 of 71

Is the Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families Constitutional?

By

On April 28, 2022

In Aboriginal, Constitutional, Indigenous

By: Robert Hamilton

PDF Version: ­­Is the Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families Constitutional? 

Case Commented On: Reference to the Court of Appeal of Quebec in relation with the Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, 2022 QCCA 185 (CanLII) [quotations from the unofficial English translation]

Legislation Commented On: Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, SC 2019, c 24

The Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, SC 2019, c 24, [the Act] received royal assent on June 21, 2019, and came into force on January 1, 2020. The Act was developed over two years and through wide-ranging consultations. It is designed to gradually transfer control of child and family services to Indigenous nations and, through this, to ensure that fewer Indigenous children are removed from their families and communities. The intention is to mitigate the effects of the assimilationist policies that have been incredibly harmful to Indigenous children, families, and communities. The Act seeks to accomplish this by establishing national standards for the provision of child and family services and by providing a mechanism through which Indigenous laws – that is, the laws of Indigenous nations themselves – can take priority over inconsistent federal and provincial laws and govern the delivery of child and family services to Indigenous peoples (Reference to the Court of Appeal of Quebec in relation with the Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, 2022 QCCA 185 (CanLII), paras 4-5 [Reference]). Although it has faced thoughtful and considered criticism, it is clear the Act seeks to substantially change how child and family services are provided and to transition the governance and regulation of those services to Indigenous peoples.

Read More

Women’s Charter Equality before the Supreme Court of Canada: Where Do We Stand as of International Women’s Day 2022?

By

On March 8, 2022

In Constitutional, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton & Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: Women’s Charter Equality before the Supreme Court of Canada: Where Do We Stand as of International Women’s Day 2022?

Matter Commented On: International Women’s Day 2022

March 8 is International Women’s Day (IWD), a day on which we assess the progress towards achieving women’s rights. The theme this year is “Break the Bias.” We are encouraged to “Imagine a gender equal world. A world free of bias, stereotypes, and discrimination. A world that is diverse, equitable, and inclusive. A world where difference is valued and celebrated.” When considering women’s rights under Canadian law, we tend to use the lenses of discrimination and equality as the umbrella words rather than bias. Bias is certainly one form of discrimination, but discrimination also includes the harms of stereotyping, prejudice, and disadvantage. The right to equality and to be free from discrimination based on protected grounds is guaranteed under s 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canada’s constitutional equality guarantee.

Read More

Who is Responsible for Extreme Intoxication?

By

On October 7, 2021

In Constitutional, Criminal

By: Lisa Silver

PDF Version: Who is Responsible for Extreme Intoxication? 

Case Commented On: R v Brown, 2021 ABCA 273 (CanLII) (Supreme Court of Canada Appeal Hearing Scheduled for November 9, 2021)

What you are about to read is not the usual case commentary. I will not summarize, analyze, or otherwise slice and dice the decision from the Alberta Court of Appeal in R v Brown, 2021 ABCA 273 (CanLII), a case upholding the constitutionality of s 33.1 of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46. Rather, I will provide context for the case, setting out the underlying principles at stake and the controversies underpinning the conflicting legal perspectives. Section 33.1 was a response by our lawmakers to the Supreme Court of Canada’s ultimate decision in R v Daviault, 1994 CanLII 61 (SCC), [1994] 3 SCR 63, which found the rule against using intoxication as a defence for general intent offences unconstitutional under s 7 of the Charter (Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11), where the accused was in a state of extreme intoxication. Section 33.1 promptly foreclosed this limited defence where the accused person used violence against or interfered with the bodily integrity of any person. Although the section was added to the Criminal Code in 1995, a mere one year after the release of Daviault, it is only recently that appellate courts have weighed in on the constitutionality of that section.

Read More

Critical Infrastructure Defence Act Charter Challenge Survives Alberta Government’s Motion to Strike

By

On August 5, 2021

In Constitutional, Human Rights

By: Jennifer Koshan, Lisa Silver and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Critical Infrastructure Defence Act Charter Challenge Survives Alberta Government’s Motion to Strike

Case Commented On: Alberta Union of Public Employees v Her Majesty the Queen (Alberta), 2021 ABQB 371 (CanLII)

Last summer we posted a critical analysis of Alberta’s Bill 1, the Critical Infrastructure Defence Act, SA 2020, c C-32.7 (CIDA). We argued that CIDA, which prohibits unlawfully entering onto, damaging, or obstructing any “essential infrastructure” in the province, violates several sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including freedom of expression (s 2(b)), freedom of peaceful assembly (s 2(c)), freedom of association (s 2(d)), the right to liberty (s 7) and the right to equality (s 15). Shortly after CIDA took effect on June 7, 2020, the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE) and three individual plaintiffs brought a constitutional challenge against the law, arguing that it violates those Charter rights and freedoms (with the exception of s 15, which was not raised), as well as sections 1(a), (c), and (d) of the Alberta Bill of Rights, RSA 2000, c A-14 (which protect similar rights as well as the right to enjoyment of property). The plaintiffs also contended that CIDA encroaches on federal jurisdiction under The Constitution Act, 1867, namely, s 91(27) (federal jurisdiction over criminal law) and s 92(10)(a) (federal jurisdiction over interprovincial works and undertakings). In a decision released in June, Justice Shaina Leonard of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench dismissed the government’s motion to strike the challenge.

Read More

The Curious Demise of Alberta’s Turn Off the Taps Legislation

By

On May 18, 2021

In Constitutional, Energy, Federal Court

By: Nigel Bankes, Andrew Leach and Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: The Curious Demise of Alberta’s Turn Off the Taps Legislation

Matters Commented On: Alberta (Attorney General) v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2021 FCA 84 (CanLII) reversing British Columbia (Attorney General) v Alberta (Attorney General), 2019 FC 1195 (CanLII), and Preserving Canada’s Economic Prosperity Act, SA 2018, c P-21.5

The Turn Off the Taps legislation ((or, more properly, Preserving Canada’s Economic Prosperity Act, SA 2018, c P-21.5) (PCEPA)) was passed under the Notley government in 2018. There have always been serious doubts as to the constitutional validity of the legislation (for discussion of the principal objections to the legislation, see ABlawg here) and it is hardly surprising that the Attorney General of British Columbia (AGBC) commenced actions first in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench and later in the Federal Court seeking to test the validity of the Act. As described by a majority of the Federal Court of Appeal in Alberta (Attorney General) v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2021 FCA 84 (CanLII) [Turn off the Taps IV], the AGBC had two main arguments. The first was that PCEPA is inconsistent with s 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867 (UK), 30 & 31 Vict, c 3; the second was that the PCEPA is a law in relation to interprovincial trade that falls outside the protection offered by s 92A(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867, the so-called ‘resource amendment’ to the Constitution. In particular, the AGBC noted that s 92A only protects laws pertaining to “primary production” as defined in the Sixth Schedule, and yet the PCEPA purported to apply to refined fuels which fell outside that definition. The Sixth Schedule provides as follows:

Read More

Page 8 of 71

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén