Category Archives: Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion

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

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”). Continue reading →

Bridging the Digital Divide: Encouraging Societal Participation in the Face of an Increasingly Digital World

By: Hasti Pourriahi

Matter Commented On: Bank of Canada Public Consultation and the Digital Divide

PDF Version: Bridging the Digital Divide: Encouraging Societal Participation in the Face of an Increasingly Digital World

The Bank of Canada’s pursuit to introduce a digital Canadian dollar is often prefaced by reference to the necessity of this development, should digital currencies issued by other countries become widespread enough that they begin compromising centrally issued currencies. Most recently, in May of 2023, a public consultation was launched around a potential central bank digital currency (CBDC) which accepted responses until June 19, 2023. The Bank of Canada recognizes that a decline in cash use could leave groups of Canadians financially excluded, especially considering ongoing unequal levels of access to technological resources and advancements. Continue reading →

R v Hills and R v Hilbach and Section 12 of the Charter: The Twelfth Dimension of Sentencing

By: Lisa Silver

Cases commented on: R v Hills, 2023 SCC 2 (CanLII); R v Hilbach, 2023 SCC 3 (CanLII)

PDF Version: R v Hills and R v Hilbach and Section 12 of the Charter: The Twelfth Dimension of Sentencing

Editors’ Note: This is the third in our series of posts to mark Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Week at the University of Calgary, which deals with the impact of mandatory minimums sentences on the Charter rights of Indigenous persons.

 

We live in four dimensions of space, famously described by the space-time continuum imagined by Albert Einstein. In legal terms, a courtroom is an example of this kind of space we perceive when practicing law. If we look outside of law and further into the field of physics, even more dimensions are possible – upwards of 26 according to the Closed Unoriented Bosonic String Theory. This article is concerned with a previously unacknowledged dimension of the law, found within the confines of the sentencing hearing. In the recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions of R v Hills, 2023 SCC 2 (CanLII) and R v Hilbach, 2023 SCC 3 (CanLII) a new dimension of the sentencing hearing is revealed through the application of s 12 of the Charter, which protects the right “not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment”. Specifically, in Hills and Hilbach this section is engaged by the minimum terms of imprisonment mandated by the offence provisions, both of which involve firearms. The subsequent s 12 inquiry is, like the dimensions conjured by string theory, not necessarily perceived by everyone in every sentencing hearing but is an ever-present reminder of core sentencing principles, like proportionality and parity, which ensure the continual presence of human dignity in the sentencing process. Although this twelfth dimension has been revealed by virtue of the Hills and Hilbach decisions, the s 12 inquiry itself reveals much about the limits of sentencing and the frailties of our system of justice. Continue reading →

Racial Bullying in Schools

By: Myrna El Fakhry Tuttle

PDF Version: Racial Bullying in Schools

Editors’ Note: This is the second in our series of posts on equity, diversity and inclusion issues to mark Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Week at the University of Calgary. For more on the Faculty of Law’s commitment to taking action on EDI issues, see here.

 

Studies show a majority of students have witnessed or experienced racism at school, with implications for both students and teachers.

A majority of students in Canada have either witnessed or experienced racism at their schools, according to a 2021 survey by the Angus Reid Institute in partnership with the University of British Columbia (ARI/UBC Survey). In this context, racism likely means racial discrimination as opposed to systemic racism. Continue reading →

There’s No Place Like Home: Why the Dower Act Remains Relevant

By: Laura Buckingham

Case Commented On: James v Belanger, 2023 ABKB 34 (CanLII)

PDF Version: There’s No Place Like Home: Why the Dower Act Remains Relevant

Editors’ Note: February 6 to 10 is Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Week at the University of Calgary. We will be publishing a number of posts this week that touch on EDI issues. This first post deals with dower rights and the inequalities experienced by unmarried spouses. For more on the Faculty of Law’s commitment to taking action on EDI issues, see here.

James v Belanger, 2023 ABKB 34 is interesting because of something that isn’t mentioned in the decision. The case is not about the Dower Act, RSA 2000, c D-15. If the Dower Act applied, the whole dispute might have been avoided. A retired man would be able to stay in the home he shared with his partner for more than 15 years. Continue reading →