Category: Rule of Law Page 1 of 3

Case Commented On: Alberta Teachers Association v Alberta (AG), 2026 ABKB 190

PDF Version: Back to School Act Survives Injunction Application

On March 13, 2026, Justice Douglas R. Mah denied the application of the Alberta Teachers Association (ATA) for an interlocutory injunction to suspend operation of the Back to School Act, SA 2025, c B-05 (BSA). Background on this legislation and the Alberta government’s use of the Charter’s notwithstanding clause to override the teachers’ rights to collectively bargain and strike appears in earlier ABlawg posts here and here. This post will discuss Justice Mah’s reasons, including his commentary on the role of judges in a constitutional democracy. This commentary is a sign of the times in Alberta, with the government posing threats to the rule of law and judges feeling compelled to speak out and defend their role. And it is not just the Alberta government seeking to exert more control over the judiciary. On March 24, Alberta was joined by the governments of Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Quebec in calling for a greater say for the provinces in the selection of federally appointed judges. The provinces’ letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney came during a week when the Supreme Court of Canada is hearing what many consider to be the most important constitutional case since the Charter came into effect in 1982, English Montreal School Board, et al v Attorney General of Quebec, et al, 2025 CanLII 2818 (SCC) (EMSB). EMSB involves foundational issues about the powers of judges after a government has invoked the Charter’s notwithstanding clause, section 33. As I will discuss, the EMSB case played a key role in Justice Mah’s decision.

The Political Threat to the Rule of Law in Canada

By Gideon Christian

On December 30, 2025

In Rule of Law

By: Gideon Christian PhD

Matter Commented On: Canadian Law Societies’ Ours to Protect Campaign

PDF Version: The Political Threat to the Rule of Law in Canada

Recently, the law societies across Canada came together to launch? Ours to Protect, a national campaign to raise awareness about the importance of the rule of law. In Canada, when we talk about threats to the rule of law, we tend to glance nervously at chaos in other countries, especially the United States. The United States has provided a dramatic study in how quickly respect for legal norms can erode. The Trump White House openly vilified judges who ruled against it – accusing them of abusing their powers and even suggesting they be impeached or prosecuted. Some years back, the same president incited an attack on Congress itself. It was a stark reminder that even free societies can teeter when their leaders flout the rule of law.

Back to School Notwithstanding the Charter

By Shaun Fluker

On October 30, 2025

In Constitutional, Education, Labour/Employment, Rule of Law, Statutory Interpretation

By: Shaun Fluker and JD students registered in the Public Interest Law Clinic

Legislation Commented On: Back to School Act, SA 2025 (full citation unavailable at publication time)

PDF Version: Back to School Notwithstanding the Charter

On Monday October 27, 2025, the Minister of Finance Nate Horner tabled Bill 2, Back to School Act, in the second session of the current Legislature, and the UCP government subsequently pushed it through all three readings of the legislative process, effectively passing it on the same day it was introduced. The Back to School Act came into force on royal assent on October 28, 2025. The Act legislates the end of the Alberta Teachers Association (ATA) strike and imposes labour terms between the Province of Alberta and the ATA for 4 years. While this alone warrants significant scrutiny, section 3 of the Act goes further and pre-emptively invokes the Charter’s notwithstanding clause (section 33), immunizing the Act from being struck because it unlawfully infringes sections 2 and 7 to 15 of the Charter. This post explains why the Back to School Act remains justiciable, which is to say, a law still amenable to judicial scrutiny.

Premier Danielle Smith and the (Non) Observance of Constitutional Conventions

By Nigel Bankes

On April 19, 2023

In Constitutional, Rule of Law

By: Nigel Bankes and Jennifer Koshan

Matter Commented On: Premier Smith’s interactions with the Department of Justice in the matter of Artur Pawlowski

PDF Version: Premier Danielle Smith and the (Non) Observance of Constitutional Conventions

For the past several weeks, news outlets have been reporting on Premier Danielle Smith’s involvement in prosecutions for COVID-19 and Coutts border blockade related offences. Most recently, a video was leaked of Premier Smith’s conversation with Artur Pawlowski, who is facing criminal charges for the Coutts blockade that Smith said she would discuss with Justice officials. One issue that has not squarely been addressed is the significance of whether Premier Smith actually spoke to prosecutors in Pawlowski’s case, or whether she just spoke to officials within the Department of Justice, including the Deputy Attorney General, about the case. The Premier’s back and forth on who she contacted suggests she believes this distinction matters, such that if she “only” did the latter she did not breach any constitutional convention relating to prosecutorial independence. In our view this is incorrect. Any contact by the Premier with the Department of Justice in relation to any particular case or class of cases is inconsistent with the constitutional conventions associated with the prosecution of criminal charges. These constitutional conventions are essential elements of the rule of law, the separation of powers, and ideas of equality before the law.

The Alberta Sovereignty Act and the Rule of Law

By Martin Olszynski

On June 22, 2022

In Constitutional, Rule of Law

By: Martin Olszynski, Jonnette Watson Hamilton, and Shaun Fluker

Matter Commented On: The Alberta Sovereignty Act and the Free Alberta Strategy

PDF Version: The Alberta Sovereignty Act and the Rule of Law

Last week, United Conservative Party (UCP) leadership hopeful Danielle Smith announced that, upon her election as Premier, she would introduce the Alberta Sovereignty Act, legislation described as the “cornerstone” of the Free Alberta Strategy (Strategy), published back in the fall of 2021 (see story here). Briefly, this law would purport to grant the Alberta Legislature the power “to refuse enforcement of any specific Act of Parliament or federal court ruling that Alberta’s elected body deemed to be a federal intrusion into an area of provincial jurisdiction” (Strategy at 22). Legal academics have dismissed the idea as one that would clearly offend Canada’s constitutional order, but to date mainstream media commentary has failed to acknowledge the fundamentally unlawful and undemocratic nature of this proposal.