Category: Supreme Court of Canada Page 6 of 22

Not Your Grandfather’s Cooperative Federalism: Constitutional Themes at the Supreme Court Hearing of Redwater

On April 2, 2018

In Constitutional, Oil & Gas, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Scott Carrière

PDF Version: Not Your Grandfather’s Cooperative Federalism: Constitutional Themes at the Supreme Court Hearing of Redwater

Case Commented On: Orphan Well Association, et al v Grant Thornton Limited, et al, 2017 ABCA 124 (CanLII), leave granted 2017 CanLII 75023 (SCC), webcast available here, factums on appeal available here

Background

The Orphan Well Association and Alberta Energy Regulator’s action against a now-defunct oil and gas company’s bankruptcy trustee and primary creditor— commonly known as Redwater—was heard before the Supreme Court in February, and with the facts of the case disclosing a number of significant issues pertaining to the division of powers, the constitutional themes took centre stage throughout the oral and written submissions to the court. The arguments put forward by the parties and interveners represent significant considerations of Canada’s doctrinal approach to federalism as they pertain to contemporary natural resource governance. This post focuses on these substantial doctrinal issues put to the court by the parties and interveners, as it is likely that the case will be decided on narrower bases than the full suite of considerations put to the Court given its general restraint on constitutional matters that could represent a shift in the established doctrine dealing with the division of federal and provincial powers.

“Not One Cookie Cutter Citizen”: A Review of ABlawg Posts on Some of Justice Sheilah Martin’s Decisions

By Jennifer Koshan

On December 11, 2017

In Supreme Court of Canada

By: Jennifer Koshan, Jonnette Watson Hamilton, Fenner Stewart, and Lisa Silver

PDF Version: “Not One Cookie Cutter Citizen”: A Review of ABlawg Posts on Some of Justice Sheilah Martin’s Decisions

Matter Commented On: Justice Sheilah Martin’s Nomination to the Supreme Court of Canada

The Faculty of Law at the University of Calgary is thrilled that one of our own – Justice Sheilah Martin – has been nominated to the Supreme Court of Canada. Many of us watched her question and answer session with Parliamentarians on 5 December 2017, and were pleased to see her fierce intelligence, compassion and humour shine through. In one of the most quoted lines from her remarks, she said that she hoped her legacy would be that she was a deep thinker, a good listener, and had really great hair. The title of this post, “Not One Cookie Cutter Citizen”, is also taken from Justice Martin’s remarks during the hearing, when she was making a point about the importance of thinking about the differential impact of the law on people with different identities and needs. A review of ABlawg posts on decisions written by Justice Martin during her tenure as a judge in Alberta reveals her concern for the impact of the law on individuals and the public. This post will highlight four of Justice Martin’s decisions that we have blogged on over the years, in areas ranging from constitutional and health law, to civil litigation and vexatious litigants, to bankruptcy law and oil and gas assets, to homicide and sexual assault law. We also provide a list of other posts on her judgments for those who are interested in further reading on Justice Martin’s legacy as a judge in Alberta.

The Unfortunate Incident of the TWU Intervention Decisions

By Alice Woolley

On September 7, 2017

In Intervenors and Standing, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Alice Woolley

PDF Version: The Unfortunate Incident of the TWU Intervention Decisions

Cases Commented On: Trinity Western University, et al. v Law Society of Upper Canada, SCC file no 37209; Law Society of British Columbia v Trinity Western University, et al, SCC file no 37318

On July 27, 2017 Justice Wagner denied intervenor status to 17 of 26 applicants in the Trinity Western University cases before the Supreme Court, including the applications of all LGBTQ+ identifying groups. Following an immediate and negative public reaction, particularly on social media, Chief Justice McLachlin used her scheduling power to add a second day to the TWU hearings, and then extended intervention status to the 17 applicants whom Justice Wagner originally rejected (Both orders can be found here). Two days later, Justice Wagner gave an interview to the Globe and Mail explaining that he had “no intention to exclude” members of the LGBTQ+ community, and that he and the Chief Justice had decided together how best to proceed after “he was made aware of concerns on social media”. The Supreme Court also issued a News Release explaining what had occurred.

R v Cody: The Supreme Court Stands Their Ground on Unreasonable Delay

By Drew Yewchuk

On June 29, 2017

In Constitutional, Criminal, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: R v Cody: The Supreme Court Stands Their Ground on Unreasonable Delay

Case Commented On: R v Cody, 2017 SCC 31 (CanLII)

Just a little under a year after the Supreme Court released R v Jordan, 2016 SCC 27 (CanLII) and established a new framework for the Charter section 11(b) right to a criminal trial within a reasonable time, the Court has released a new decision on the issue. (For my earlier post on Jordan, see here, and for a post discussing interpretation of Jordan by some Alberta courts see here.) R v Cody, 2017 SCC 31 (CanLII) clarifies the Jordan framework, but more importantly it affirms the Supreme Court’s commitment to ending the “culture of complacency towards delay in the criminal justice system” (at para 1) despite the pressure Jordan has placed on Crown prosecutors.

“Majoritarian Blind Spot”? Drug Dependence and the Protection Against Employment Discrimination

By Jennifer Koshan

On June 20, 2017

In Human Rights, Labour/Employment, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: “Majoritarian Blind Spot”? Drug Dependence and the Protection Against Employment Discrimination

Case Commented On: Stewart v Elk Valley Coal Corp., 2017 SCC 30 (CanLII)

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Stewart v Elk Valley Coal Corp., 2017 SCC 30 (CanLII) on June 15, 2017. As noted in earlier ABlawg posts on the case (see here and here), the case involves a long-term employee whose job was terminated when, after a minor workplace accident, he tested positive for cocaine and admitted to having consumed the drug while off work a couple of days prior. Elk Valley Coal, the employer, had a policy providing some lenience for employees who disclosed drug or alcohol addictions and sought treatment, failing which its practice was to automatically terminate employment where an employee tested positive for drugs or alcohol following a workplace accident. Stewart did not avail himself of this policy because he did not realize he had an addiction until after the accident. He alleged that his termination amounted to discrimination on the basis of disability contrary to section 7 of the Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c A-25.5, and that he had not been reasonably accommodated by Elk Valley. Stewart’s claim was dismissed by the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal, a decision upheld by the Court of Queen’s Bench and a majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal. A majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (per Chief Justice McLachlin) upheld as reasonable the Tribunal decision that there was no discrimination. Justices Moldaver and Wagner disagreed with this conclusion but concurred in the result, finding that the Tribunal was reasonable in concluding that Elk Valley had fulfilled its duty to accommodate. Justice Gascon dissented, characterizing the Tribunal’s decisions on both discrimination and the duty to accommodate as unreasonable.

I find Justice Gascon’s decision most persuasive and most in keeping with a broad, generous approach to interpreting human rights legislation. His remark (at para 59) that drug-dependent persons can “easily be caught in a majoritarian blind spot in the discrimination discourse” was evident in the decisions of the Tribunal and courts below, and in the reasons of the majority of the Supreme Court, as I will elaborate on in this post.