Page 12

By: Shaun Fluker

Matter commented on: Bill 18, Provincial Priorities Act, 1^st Sess, 31^st Leg, Alberta, 2024 (first reading 10 April 2024)

PDF Version: Bill 18 Provincial Priorities Act: Alberta Strikes Again

On April 10, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith introduced Bill 18 for first reading in the current session of the Legislature, and second reading began on April 17. If Bill 18 passes through the legislative process in its current form, it will be enacted as the Provincial Priorities Act and require designated entities to obtain prior approval before entering into, amending, extending, or renewing an agreement with the federal government. The purpose and consequences of Bill 18 have been questioned by those who will be directly affected, including municipalities and post-secondary institutions. The Premier has also spoken to the media about the Bill – see e.g. here. The commentary thus far makes one thing very clear: Bill 18 is a sequel to the Alberta Sovereignty within a United Canada Act, SA 2022, c A-33.8 (Sovereignty Act) in its attempt to implement the Free Alberta Strategy and block what are seen as federal intrusions into provincial jurisdiction. Less clear is whether there are also some ideological motivations for the Bill. This post examines the content of Bill 18 and, to further understand the purpose of this proposed statute, reflects on the opening statements made by the Premier during first and second reading in the Legislature.

Albertan Waits: One Thousand and Three Hundred Delays

By Drew Yewchuk

On April 24, 2024

In Access to Information, Privacy

By: Drew Yewchuk

Case Commented on: Alberta Energy v Alberta (IPC), 2024 ABKB 198 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Albertan Waits: One Thousand and Three Hundred Delays

Alberta Energy v Alberta (IPC), 2024 ABKB 198 (CanLII) is another decision relating to attempts to use the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSA 2000, c F-25 (FOIP) to obtain records from Alberta Energy about their May 2020 decision to rescind the Coal Development Policy for Alberta (1976). Nigel Bankes described the initial rescission of the policy here and the reinstatement in February 2021 here.

The circumstances in Alberta Energy v Alberta (IPC) are an outrageous example of how Alberta’s elected officials exploit weaknesses in FOIP to conceal how government decision-making works to keep Albertans misinformed or disinformed.

Original Powers: Reviving the Federal Disallowance Power to Combat Anti-Trans Legislation

By Charlotte Dalwood

On April 23, 2024

In Constitutional, Legal Research

By: Charlotte Dalwood

Matters Commented On: Government of New Brunswick, Policy 713 Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, (Fredricton: Government of New Brunswick, 2023); Government of Saskatchewan, Use of Preferred First Name and Pronouns by Students, (Regina: Government of Saskatchewan, 2023); Government of Alberta, News Release, “Preserving choice for children and youth” (1 February 2024).

PDF Version: Original Powers: Reviving the Federal Disallowance Power to Combat Anti-Trans Legislation

A specter haunts Canada: the specter of legislated transphobia.

It began in New Brunswick. In Summer 2023, the province’s Minister of Education and Early Childhood Education changed Policy 713—the provincial education policy pertaining to sexual orientation and gender—to limit gender diverse students’ ability to use their chosen names and pronouns at school (see New Brunswick, Department of Education and Early Childhood Education, Policy 713 Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (Fredericton: Government of New Brunswick, 2023)).

BC Court of Appeal Recognizes the Myth of False Allegations of Intimate Partner Violence

By Deanne Sowter

On April 22, 2024

In Uncategorized

By: Deanne Sowter and Jennifer Koshan

Case Commented On: KMN v SZM, 2024 BCCA 70 (CanLII), overturning 2023 BCSC 940 (CanLII)

PDF Version: BC Court of Appeal Recognizes the Myth of False Allegations of Intimate Partner Violence

We have both written previously on myths and stereotypes about intimate partner violence (IPV), one of the most common of which is that women make false or exaggerated claims of violence to gain an advantage in family law disputes (see here and here). In KMN v SZM, 2024 BCCA 70 (CanLII), the British Columbia Court of Appeal (BCCA) recognized the existence of this myth and the need for courts to avoid making assumptions that perpetuate it, holding that it is erroneous to do so unless there is an evidentiary basis for a finding of false allegations. This judgment came just a week before the Supreme Court of Canada released a decision on rape myths and stereotypes, in which it reiterated its recognition of the myth of “false allegations of sexual assault based on ulterior motives” (R v Kruk, 2024 SCC 7 (CanLII) at paras 35-37). The Supreme Court has not yet acknowledged the myth of false allegations of IPV in the family law context, however.

The Dickson Decision, UNDRIP, and the Federal UNDRIP Act

By Nigel Bankes

On April 18, 2024

In Aboriginal, Constitutional, Indigenous

By: Nigel Bankes and Jennifer Koshan

Decision Commented On: Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, 2024 SCC 10 (CanLII)

PDF Version: The Dickson Decision, UNDRIP, and the Federal UNDRIP Act

This post is part of continuing ABlawg commentary on the approach of the courts to legislation implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). That commentary includes the decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Gitxaala v British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner), 2023 BCSC 1680 (CanLII) (ABlawg post here) and, most importantly, the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Reference re An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, 2024 SCC 5 (CanLII) (FNIM Reference) (ABlawg post here). This post is also the first of multiple posts that ABlawg anticipates on the Dickson decision.