Category: Supreme Court of Canada Page 21 of 23

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: Security Trumps Freedom of Religion for Hutterite Drivers

Case Commented On: Alberta v Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37

The Supreme Court of Canada’s long awaited decision on whether Hutterites can be forced to have their photographs taken to obtain a driver’s licence was released on July 24, 2009. Reversing the judgments of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench and the Alberta Court of Appeal, a majority of the Supreme Court finds that the violation of freedom of religion caused by the photo requirement is justifiable under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This comment will argue that the majority’s decision, especially its failure to find a duty to accommodate on the part of the government, sets the protection of Charter rights back several years.

Evidence of Amelioration: What Does Kapp Require of Governments Under s.15(2) of the Charter? What Will Courts Permit?

By Jennifer Koshan

On March 8, 2009

In Aboriginal, Constitutional, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: Evidence of Amelioration: What Does Kapp Require of Governments Under s.15(2) of the Charter? What Will Courts Permit?

Case Commented On: Cunningham v Alberta (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development), 2009 ABCA 53

Jonnette Watson Hamilton and I recently commented on the implications of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R v Kapp, 2008 SCC 41 for the proper approach to equality rights under s.15(1) of the Charter (see The End of Law: A New Framework for Analyzing Section 15(1) Charter Challenges). We also noted that Kapp was more clear in terms of the approach to be taken under s.15(2) of the Charter, giving that section “independent status to protect ameliorative laws, programs and activities.” A recent Alberta case deals with a potential new battleground under s.15(2): government attempts to introduce new evidence to establish the ameliorative purpose of their laws on appeal. If a government is successful in this respect, and the court accepts the ameliorative purpose of the law or program in question, this will effectively serve to bar a claim under s.15(1).

The End of Law: A New Framework for Analyzing Section 15(1) Charter Challenges

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On February 20, 2009

In Aboriginal, Constitutional, Oil & Gas, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Jennifer Koshan and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: The End of Law: A New Framework for Analyzing Section 15(1) Charter Challenges

Case Commented On: Ermineskin Indian Band and Nation v Canada, 2009 SCC 9

After the Supreme Court of Canada handed down its decision in R v Kapp, 2008 SCC 41 in June of 2008 there were questions about whether the Court had changed the legal framework for analyzing challenges brought under section 15(1) of the Charter. Kapp had clearly changed the approach to section 15(2), granting it independent status to protect ameliorative laws, programs and activities. However, on the topic of section 15(1), the Court had sent mixed signals about its intended approach. The message sent by the Court’s February 13, 2009 decision in Ermineskin Indian Band and Nation v Canada is much clearer; the legal framework for analyzing section 15(1) claims will be very different than it has been for the past decade.

The Crown has neither the power nor the duty to invest Indian monies: The use of legislation to limit trust duties

By Nigel Bankes

On February 20, 2009

In Aboriginal, Constitutional, Oil & Gas, Supreme Court of Canada

Cases Considered: Ermineskin Indian Band and Nation v. Canada, 2009 SCC 9.

PDF Version: The Crown has neither the power nor the duty to invest Indian monies: The use of legislation to limit trust duties

The “money management” part of the long-running Samson\Ermineskin Case has now come to a close. A unanimous seven person panel of the Supreme Court of Canada in a judgement authored by Justice Marshall Rothstein has ruled that the Government of Canada is not liable when it fails to invest First Nation royalty monies and instead deposits those monies to the credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund (CRF) and pays the First Nations interest on those monies. In fact, the Court has ruled that the Indian Act makes it illegal for the Crown to invest Indian capital monies. The Court also ruled that the provisions of the Act which require this conclusion do not constitute discrimination within the meaning of s.15 of the Charter.

Supreme Court denies leave to appeal to parents in disinterment case

By Jennifer Koshan

On November 20, 2008

In Supreme Court of Canada

Cases Considered: Johnston v. Alberta (Vital Statistics), 2008 ABCA 188, leave to appeal denied by S.C.C.

PDF Version: Supreme Court denies leave to appeal to parents in disinterment case

On November 13, 2008, Justices Louis LeBel, Marie Deschamps and Louise Charron of the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal to Grace Johnston in a case involving her right to have a say in the disinterment of her son’s remains. No reasons were provided for the Supreme Court’s decision, although it is interesting to note that no costs were awarded against Grace Johnston for pursuing the leave to appeal application. As noted in previous posts on this case, (https://ablawg.ca/2008/01/12/leave-to-intervene-denied-to-metis-nation-in-case-involving-disinterment-of-rcmp/#more-44 and https://ablawg.ca/2008/06/07/disinterment-of-rcmp-officer-may-proceed-despite-parents%E2%80%99-wishes/#more-153), the Alberta Courts upheld the decision of the Director of Vital Statistics under the Cemeteries Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. C-3, to permit disinterment of Constable Leo Johnston’s remains on the application of his widow Kelly Barsness. Constable Johnston was one of four RCMP officers killed in the line of duty near Mayerthorpe, Alberta in March 2005, and was originally buried in his home town of Lac La Biche. Ms. Barsness’s wish to have Constable Johnston’s remains moved to the special RCMP Cemetery in Saskatchewan can now proceed, in spite of the objections of Grace Johnston, her husband Ronald, and members of the Métis community who were denied any standing in the case.