Category: Equality Page 2 of 5

Charter Sections 15 and 25: The Majority Judgment in Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation and its Application in the Federal Court

On August 29, 2025

In Aboriginal, Constitutional, Equality, Indigenous

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton, Robert Hamilton, and Jennifer Koshan

Cases Commented On: Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, 2024 SCC 10 (CanLII); Houle v Swan River First Nation, 2025 FC 267 (CanLII); Donald-Potskin v Sawridge First Nation, 2025 FC 648 (CanLII); Cunningham v Sucker Creek First Nation 150A, 2025 FC 1174 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Charter Sections 15 and 25: The Majority Judgment in Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation and its Application in the Federal Court

This is the third in a series of four ABlawg posts on the Supreme Court of Canada’s complex decision in Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, 2024 SCC 10 (CanLII). The first post examined the extent to which various factions of the Court referenced the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the second post analyzed their handling of whether the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applied in this context. In this post, we explore another issue on which there was serious disagreement amongst members of the Court. Having found that the Charter applied to the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation’s (VGFN) residency requirement for Council elections, the majority (Justices Nicolas Kasirer and Mahmud Jamal, with Chief Justice Richard Wagner and Justice Suzanne Côté concurring) and dissenting justices (Justices Sheilah Martin and Michelle O’Bonsawin) ruled on how to approach the interplay between sections 15(1) and 25 of the Charter. We look at the majority judgment and three recent decisions applying the majority’s approach to section 25, also in cases involving First Nations elections: Houle v Swan River First Nation, 2025 FC 267 (CanLII) (Houle), Donald-Potskin v Sawridge First Nation, 2025 FC 648 (CanLII)) (Donald-Potskin), and Cunningham v Sucker Creek First Nation 150A, 2025 FC 1174 (CanLII). The fourth post in this series will focus on the dissenting judgment of Martin and O’Bonsawin JJ on the interplay between sections 15(1) and 25.

New Standards (or is it a Book Ban?) in Alberta K-12 Schools

By Shaun Fluker

On July 15, 2025

In Administrative Law, Education, Equality, Youth and the Law

By: Shaun Fluker

Order Commented On: Ministerial Order 030/2025 (Education and Childcare)

PDF Version: New Standards (or is it a Book Ban?) in Alberta K-12 Schools

On July 4, 2025, Education and Childcare Minister Demetrios Nicolaides issued Ministerial Order 030/2025 prohibiting the inclusion of library materials with prescribed sexual content in K-12 schools. The Minister’s statement that this is about school standards and not a book ban, as reported by CBC News here, is simply not reconcilable with the written terms of his Order, as explained in this post.

Myths, Stereotypes, and Substantive Equality

By Jennifer Koshan

On November 29, 2024

In Equality

By: Jennifer Koshan

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).