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

Category: Equality Page 3 of 4

Law Needs Feminism Because…

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: Law Needs Feminism Because…

Event Commented On: Law Needs Feminism Because, 2020 National Forum x Calgary

Law Needs Feminism Because (LNFB) is a Canadian-based collective made up of law students and legal professionals that undertakes advocacy around issues of intersectional feminism. Intersectional feminism, a term first coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw, embraces the idea that women may be disadvantaged through intersecting axes of oppression such as gender and race. LNFB advocates on issues of intersectional feminism through an annual photo campaign at law schools across the country, allowing students, faculty and staff to share their perspectives and lived experiences of disadvantage based on gender and other grounds. The University of Calgary Faculty of Law has participated in this photo campaign three times now. LNFB also holds an annual National Forum at a Canadian law school, and its fourth annual Forum is taking place in Calgary March 6 and 7, 2020. Our Faculty’s intrepid student group, the Calgary Women Studying Law Association (CWSLA), is hosting the Forum with the theme of Innovative Intersectionality. The Forum will bring together law students (and those in related disciplines) from across Canada along with legal and other professionals and members of the public more broadly.

ABlawg readers who are interested in these issues are encouraged to attend the LNFB Forum. Registration for the Forum and its many interesting workshops is available here and the schedule is available here. For those who can’t attend, ABlawg will be featuring a series of blog posts on the Forum in the weeks to come.


This post may be cited as: Jennifer Koshan, “Law Needs Feminsm Because…” (March 6, 2020), online: ABlawg, http://ablawg.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Blog_JK_LNFB.pdf

To subscribe to ABlawg by email or RSS feed, please go to http://ablawg.ca

Follow us on Twitter @ABlawg

(Dis)Proving Racism: A Rebuttal to Klippenstein’s Critical Review of the Law Society of Ontario’s Report on Challenges Facing Racialized Licensees

By: Joshua Sealy-Harrington

PDF Version: (Dis)Proving Racism: A Rebuttal to Klippenstein’s Critical Review of the Law Society of Ontario’s Report on Challenges Facing Racialized Licensees

Document Commented On: Murray Klippenstein, Critical Review of the Challenges Report

On January 8, 2020, Murray Klippenstein published a Critical Review of the Challenges Report (Critical Review). In it, he argues that the Law Society of Ontario’s (LSO’s) March 11, 2014 final report on Challenges Facing Racialized Licensees (Challenges Report) should be rejected because it is “driven by a particular political ideology” and “methodologically invalid” (at 15). And, as Mr. Klippenstein indicates in his Critical Review, his ultimate purpose is undoing LSO initiatives geared towards promoting equality in the legal profession—modest initiatives which, somehow, receive adamant opposition from certain members of the legal profession.

Discrimination Justified in Elder Advocates of Alberta Society Class Action

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton and Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: Discrimination Justified in Elder Advocates of Alberta Society Class Action

Case Commented On: Elder Advocates of Alberta Society v Alberta, 2019 ABCA 342 (Can LII)

The Alberta Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal of the Elder Advocates of Alberta Society from the January 2018 judgment of Justice June Ross, which had dismissed their class-action challenging accommodation fees charged to long-term care residents by the province. Accommodation fees cover expenses such as meals, housekeeping, and building maintenance, and currently range from $55.90 per day for a standard shared room to $68.00 per day for a private room. The essence of the class action claim was that long-term care residents are subsidizing their health care costs, something no other users of the Alberta health care system are required to do.

Time for Buy-Back: Supreme Court Set to Hear Important Adverse Effects Discrimination Case

By: Jennifer Koshan and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Time for Buy Back: Supreme Court Set to Hear Important Adverse Effects Discrimination Case

Case Commented On: Fraser v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 223 (CanLII), leave to appeal granted, 2019 CanLII 42345 (SCC)

In December, the Supreme Court of Canada will hear an appeal in an equality rights challenge under section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Several female members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police argue that their employer’s pension rules – which denied pension buy-back rights to those who were job-sharing – discriminated against them based on their sex and family or parental status. The case is a classic example of adverse effects discrimination, involving a claim that a law or policy that is neutral on its face has an adverse impact on the basis of grounds protected under section 15(1). In this post we will review the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal decisions rejecting the women’s claim to set the stage for the upcoming appeal at the Supreme Court.

Boulachanis v Canada: Transgender Inmate Moved to Women’s Prison

By: Amy Matychuk

PDF Version: Boulachanis v Canada: Transgender Inmate Moved to Women’s Prison

Case Commented On: Boulachanis v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FC 456 (CanLII)

In Boulachanis v Canada, Justice Sébastien Grammond of the Federal Court granted Jamie Boulachanis’ application for an interlocutory injunction ordering that she be transferred to a women’s prison. Ms. Boulachanis, who is a transgender woman, initially made a transfer request to Correctional Service Canada (CSC) and was denied. She applied for judicial review of the decision denying the transfer. While waiting for resolution of her judicial review application, she was moved to administrative segregation due to threats to her safety from other (male) inmates. Accordingly, she successfully applied for an interlocutory injunction and an order that she be moved to a women’s prison immediately.

Justice Grammond’s decision discusses Ms. Boulachanis’ history, the rights of transgender people in a correctional environment, and the tripartite test for an interlocutory injunction. He found, “the refusal to transfer Ms. Boulachanis to a women’s institution constitutes prima facie discrimination based on gender identity or expression” (at para 3). Justice Grammond’s decision is an important victory for the rights of transgender inmates, who face unique roadblocks and safety risks and who must contend with persistent myths and misinformation about their gender identities and expressions.

Page 3 of 4

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén