Category: Injunctions

Case and Bill Commented On: Egale Canada v Alberta, 2025 ABKB 394 (CanLII); Bill 9, Protecting Alberta’s Children Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, 2^nd Session, 31st Legislature

PDF Version: The Nuclear Option: An Update on Alberta’s Legislation Targeting Trans and Gender Diverse Youth

On November 18, 2025 the UCP government introduced Bill 9, which seeks to amend three statutes that were passed last year restricting the rights of trans and gender diverse youth. The Protecting Alberta’s Children Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 invokes s 33 of the Charter, such that if the Bill is passed, the three statutes will apply notwithstanding several Charter rights and freedoms, the Alberta Bill of Rights, RSA 2000, c A-14, and the Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c A-25.5. This is the second time s 33 has been used in recent weeks, with Bill 2, the Back to School Act, SA 2025, c B?0.5, invoking s 33 to end the teachers’ strike and impose a contract on them in late October (see an ABlawg post on Bill 2 by Shaun Fluker et al here).

Edmonton’s Encampment Litigation: A View from the Inside

By Anna Lund

On October 16, 2024

In Injunctions, Police, Provincial Court

By: Anna Lund

Matter Commented On: Edmonton’s Encampment Litigation

PDF Version: Edmonton’s Encampment Litigation: A View from the Inside

In the autumn of 2023, the Coalition for Justice and Human Rights sued the City of Edmonton to limit when and how it forcibly evicts unhoused people from encampments. The Coalition argued that the City’s approach to displacing encampments violated the human rights of encampment residents, as protected by Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A court dismissed the Coalition’s claim on a preliminary ground, deciding that the lawsuit should be brought by someone else, and thus the Court did not decide whether the City’s displacement policies infringed the Charter. The case illustrates the difficulties of vindicating the rights of marginalized persons through the courts, raising the troubling prospect that our unhoused neighbours may in theory have the same fundamental rights as the rest of Canadians, but in practice are unable to exercise them.

Let Them Eat Breakfast? Encampments on Campus Part 3

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On July 17, 2024

In Constitutional, Injunctions, Protest

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton and Jennifer Koshan

Decision Commented On: University of Toronto (Governing Council) v Doe et al., 2024 ONSC 3755 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Let Them Eat Breakfast? Encampments on Campus Part 3

Stampede Week in Calgary just ended. Pancake breakfasts and other festivities went ahead despite a recent water emergency. At times like this, folks often point to Calgary’s can-do attitude. Indeed, some observers have suggested that this same can-do attitude prevailed, in a good way, when the University of Calgary (UCalgary) called in the Calgary Police Service (CPS) to enforce a trespass notice within less than 24 hours of an on-campus encampment being established on May 9, 2024 (see e.g., the comments of Councillor Terry Wong at the May Calgary Police Commission hearing at 46:13, 49:15). Who needs an expensive court-ordered injunction when the police are willing to heed the call of property owners? Well, the University of Toronto (U of T) decided that it did, seemingly because the Toronto police – unlike the CPS – refused to intervene without a court order in a 50+ day encampment on that campus (University of Toronto v Doe et al., 2024 ONSC 3755 (CanLII) at para 212). U of T got its interlocutory injunction on July 2 and then others, such as Memorial University (here), suggested that the U of T injunction decision supported their actions in removing protesters. We expect UCalgary will also rely on the U of T decision to justify its actions after the fact.

Considering the Court’s Reputation: Injunctions and Civil Disobedience

By Daniella Marchand

On October 29, 2021

In Injunctions, Protest

By: Daniella Marchand*

PDF Version: Considering the Court’s Reputation: Injunctions and Civil Disobedience

Decision Commented On: Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v Rainforest Flying Squad, 2021 BCSC 1903 (CanLII)

On September 28^th, 2021, Justice Douglas Thompson declined to grant Teal Cedar Products Ltd. an extension to an injunction that was put in place in response to the growing protests, demonstrations, and blockades preventing Teal Cedar’s access to Fairy Creek in British Columbia. Fairy Creek is located northeast of Port Renfrew, on the territory of the Pacheedaht First Nation. This judgement came as the protests and blockades entered their second year, and recently led to the highest number of arrests during an act of civil disobedience in Canadian history.