Category: Equality Page 1 of 4

Case Commented On: R v Kruk, 2024 SCC 7 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Myths, Stereotypes, and Substantive Equality

Canada’s legal frameworks related to substantive equality and sexual assault law have led to a robust body of jurisprudence on myths and stereotypes about sexual violence. The Supreme Court of Canada first used the language of myths and stereotypes in R v Lavallee, 1990 CanLII 95 (SCC), [1990] 1 SCR 852. In Lavallee, Justice Bertha Wilson repudiated the myth that real victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) will leave their abusers, noting that there are many reasons why women may be unable to do so. A year later, the Court identified several myths and stereotypes about sexual assault, including the “twin myths” that women with a sexual history are more likely to have consented to the alleged sexual activity or that they are less worthy of belief (see R v Seaboyer, 1991 CanLII 76 (SCC), [1991] 2 SCR 577; most recently see R v TWW, 2024 SCC 19 (CanLII)). In the decades since, numerous myths and stereotypes about gender-based violence (GBV) have been debunked by the Supreme Court (see here), and in cases where such misconceptions have infected trial decisions, errors of law have been found on appeal.

An Open Letter to Premier Danielle Smith Re: “Preserving choice for children and youth” Announcement

By Admin

On February 15, 2024

In Constitutional, Equality, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, Youth and the Law

Matter Commented On: Government of Alberta, News Release, “Preserving choice for children and youth” (1 February 2024)

PDF Version: An Open Letter to Premier Danielle Smith Re: “Preserving choice for children and youth” Announcement

Editor’s Note:

This post is a reproduction of a letter sent by faculty members, legal researchers, and staff at the University of Alberta and University of Calgary Faculties of Law to the Premier of Alberta regarding the government’s announcement of restrictions targeting transgender youth.

Premier Danielle Smith
Office of the Premier
307 Legislature Building
10800 – 97 Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta
T5K 2B6

By email: premier@gov.ab.ca

12 February 2024

Dear Premier Smith:

Re: “Preserving choice for children and youth” announcement

We are faculty members, legal researchers, and staff at the University of Alberta and University of Calgary Faculties of Law. We have come together to express our deep concerns with the government’s announcement of restrictions targeting transgender youth. These restrictions will harm Two-Spirit, trans, and gender diverse children and youth by undermining their education, restricting their access to healthcare, and narrowing their sport and recreation opportunities. We believe these restrictions violate their rights, as enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”).

What Does La Rose Tell Us About Climate Change Litigation in Canada?

By Nigel Bankes

On February 2, 2024

In Constitutional, Environmental, Equality

By: Nigel Bankes, Jennifer Koshan, Jonnette Watson Hamilton, and Martin Olszynski

Case Commented On: La Rose v Canada, 2023 FCA 241 (CanLII)

PDF Version: What Does La Rose Tell Us About Climate Change Litigation in Canada?

The last decade has seen an explosion of domestic climate change litigation around the world and an equally rich body of academic literature examining the case law from a variety of disciplinary perspectives. The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law maintains an excellent data base covering these developments. Important cases in other jurisdictions include the Urgenda decision (Urgenda v Netherlands (2019)) and Shell decision (Milieudefensie et al v Shell (2021)) in the Netherlands, and the 2021 decision of the German constitutional court (Neubauer et al v Germany). Australian environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) have been particularly active in bringing climate change issues before the courts, especially in the context of proposed natural gas and coal projects, most famously in the Sharma case (Sharma by her litigation representative Sister Marie Brigid Arthur v Minister for the Environment [2021] FCA 560, appeal allowed, [2022] FCAFC 35).

The Myth of False Allegations of Intimate Partner Violence

By Jennifer Koshan

On November 8, 2023

In Criminal, Equality, Family

By: Jennifer Koshan

Case Commented On: R v RMD, 2022 ABKB 851 (CanLII)

PDF Version: The Myth of False Allegations of Intimate Partner Violence

A colleague recently brought to my attention a decision concerning intimate partner sexual violence that was released earlier this year. In R v RMD, Justice Robert Graesser dealt with an application by the accused to cross-examine the complainant – his previous partner – on her past sexual activity in a criminal trial for alleged sexual assault. The court’s reasons for decision on this application arguably perpetuate one of the most common myths about intimate partner violence (IPV): that litigants make false or exaggerated claims of violence to gain an advantage in family law disputes. Indeed, the court went so far as to take judicial notice of this “fact” (at para 45). This post unpacks the decision, placing it in the larger context of gendered myths and stereotypes about IPV and the relevant research and case law.

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

By Charlotte Dalwood

On October 6, 2023

In Constitutional, Equality

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.