University of Calgary Faculty of Law ABLawg.ca logo over mountains

The Dissent in Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation: Failing to Accommodate Legal Pluralism

By

On September 24, 2025

In Aboriginal, Constitutional, Indigenous

By: Jennifer Koshan, Robert Hamilton, and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

Cases Commented On: Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, 2024 SCC 10 (CanLII); Houle v Swan River First Nation, 2025 FC 267 (CanLII); Donald-Potskin v Sawridge First Nation, 2025 FC 648 (CanLII); Cunningham v Sucker Creek First Nation 150A, 2025 FC 1174 (CanLII)  

PDF Version: The Dissent in Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation: Failing to Accommodate Legal Pluralism

This is the fourth and final post in our series on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, 2024 SCC 10 (CanLII). Our last post examined the majority judgment of Justices Nicholas Kasirer and Mahmud Jamal (Richard Wagner CJ and Suzanne Cote J concurring) on the interplay between sections 15(1) and 25 of the Charter. This post focuses on the dissenting judgment of Justices Sheilah Martin and Michelle O’Bonsawin on the section 15/25 issues. As we discuss, the two opinions contrast significantly in the way they prioritize the protection of collective Indigenous rights and the claims based on individual Charter rights and freedoms. We describe and critique the dissent’s analysis and we return to the three recent decisions introduced in our third post to think through how the approach of Martin and O’Bonsawin JJ would have played out in those cases (see Houle v Swan River First Nation, 2025 FC 267 (CanLII); Donald-Potskin v Sawridge First Nation, 2025 FC 648 (CanLII); Cunningham v Sucker Creek First Nation 150A, 2025 FC 1174 (CanLII)).

Read More

BIA Preferences: Rebutting the Presumption of Intention to Prefer

By

On September 23, 2025

In Bankruptcy and Insolvency

By: Jassmine Girgis

Case Commented On: RPG Receivables Purchase Group Inc v American Pacific Corporation, 2025 ONCA 371

PDF Version: BIA Preferences: Rebutting the Presumption of Intention to Prefer

One of the goals of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3 (BIA) is to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of the bankrupt’s assets to its creditors. To that end, the BIA preference provisions allow a trustee to claw back payments made by the debtor to a creditor if the payments result in a preference to one creditor over others. The debtor can make any payments it wants while solvent, but these payments become improper if they are made when the debtor is insolvent.

Read More

CEO of the Alberta Energy Regulator Denies Public Hearing Rights on a Coal Application

By

On September 15, 2025

In Administrative Law, Environmental, Natural Resources

By: Nigel Bankes and Shaun Fluker

Decisions Commented On: AER Panel Decision (July 23, 2025 – Proceeding 449) and AER Reconsideration Decision (August 21, 2015)

PDF Version: CEO of the Alberta Energy Regulator Denies Public Hearing Rights on a Coal Application

This post comments on a recent interlocutory proceeding at the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER or Regulator) concerning a motion by Summit Coal Inc. (Summit) to cancel a scheduled public hearing on its coal mine project application. The basis for the motion was that all the directly and adversely affected persons who initially opposed the application, had subsequently withdrawn their opposition. Accordingly, Summit submitted there was no longer a need for a public hearing to consider the application. The AER panel assigned to the hearing dismissed Summit’s motion on July 23, ruling that the hearing should proceed because two ENGOs with full participation status in the hearing remain opposed to the application. On August 21 the AER’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Rob Morgan issued a reconsideration decision that reversed the panel’s ruling and cancelled the public hearing. Two novel questions of law under the Responsible Energy Development Act, SA 2012, c R-17.3 (REDA) arise from these decisions: (1) as a matter of law does the CEO have the authority to vary or reverse a decision of a panel of a hearing commissioners seized with an application to the AER and (2) what is the legal significance of being “directly and adversely affected” for the purposes of a hearing on an application before the AER.

Read More

Securing the Infrastructure, Straining the Constitution? Bill C-8’s Cybersecurity Overhaul

By

On September 5, 2025

In Administrative Law, Constitutional, Privacy

By: Dav More and Tulika Bali

Matter Commented On: Bill C-8, An Act respecting cyber security (1st Sess, 45th Parl, 2025)

PDF Version: Securing the Infrastructure, Straining the Constitution? Bill C-8’s Cybersecurity Overhaul

Cyberattacks targeting vital infrastructure have intensified globally. Recent high-profile incidents in the United States and Europe prompted national governments to tighten regulation (see Industrial Cyber, The National Law Review, CER, and AP News). The EU’s NIS2 Directive mandates stricter cybersecurity standards across member states by 2024. In Canada, the federal government introduced Bill C-26 in June 2022, aiming to overhaul cybersecurity regulation, but that bill died when Parliament was prorogued in early 2025 (Miller Thomson at para 2-3).

Read More

Bill C-2 and the Return of Warrantless Access: Same Fight, New Wrapper

By

On September 4, 2025

In National Security, Privacy

By: Dav More & Tulika Bali

Matter Commented On: Bill C-2, An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures (1st Sess, 45th Parl, 2025)

PDF Version: Bill C-2 and the Return of Warrantless Access: Same Fight, New Wrapper

Bill C?2, the federal government’s so-called “Strong Borders Act,” introduced in June 2025, proposes sweeping changes across border enforcement, immigration, and criminal law. Also tucked deep in the Bill are expansive new powers for law enforcement to access subscriber data, often without a warrant. These lawful access provisions, which have been controversial in the past, are now being quietly reintroduced through omnibus national security legislation. The constitutional concerns are immediate and serious, especially under section 8 of the Charter. Critics argue that the Bill undermines more than a decade of privacy jurisprudence and reopens doors that R v Spencer, 2014 SCC 43 (CanLII) had firmly closed (see here).

Read More

Page 11 of 436

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén