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

Judicial Review is about the Legality of State Decision-Making

By

On June 11, 2018

In Administrative Law

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: Judicial Review is about the Legality of State Decision-Making

Case Commented On: Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Judicial Committee) v Wall, 2018 SCC 26 (CanLII)

The Supreme Court of Canada has reversed the Alberta Court of Appeal decision in Wall v Judicial Committee of the Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, 2016 ABCA 255 (CanLII) which ruled the Highwood Congregation decision to expel one of its members was subject to judicial review on the basis of an alleged breach of procedural fairness. In this unanimous judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeal stretched the reach of judicial review too far in holding that this mechanism of judicial oversight applies to a decision of a non-state actor.

Read More

A Superior Court’s Inherent Jurisdiction to Infringe the Charter Right to a Jury Trial?

By

On June 8, 2018

In Criminal, Human Rights

By: Admin

PDF Version: A Superior Court’s Inherent Jurisdiction to Infringe the Charter Right to a Jury Trial?

Case Commented On: R v Boisjoli, 2018 ABQB 410 (CanLII)

The decision of Justice Eldon J. Simpson in R v Boisjoli is unusual. On April 5, 2018, the Crown and the accused, Mr. Boisjoli, appeared before Justice Simpson to select jurors for a trial scheduled for the week of April 9. The charge (or one of the charges) was one of intimidation of a justice system participant, contrary to section 423.1 of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46. However, no jury was selected on April 5. Instead, Justice Simpson, by his own motion and under the claimed authority of the court’s inherent jurisdiction, ordered that Mr. Boisjoli’s trial go ahead as a trial by judge alone. Justice Simpson’s order was made because of the anticipated behavior of Mr. Boisjoli, i.e. that he intended to “artificially frustrate the jury selection process” (at para 24) and “disrupt and sabotage” the jury trial (at para 37). There was only a brief mention of Mr. Boisjoli’s Charter right to a trial by jury, and no Charter analysis. Instead, Justice Simpson relied upon an analogy to a section in the Criminal Code that equated an accused’s non-appearance with a waiver of a jury trial.

Read More

When Crocodiles and Kangaroos Dance Together, Anything is Possible: Report of the Timor-Leste and Australia Conciliation Commission

By

On June 7, 2018

In Uncategorized

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: When Crocodiles and Kangaroos Dance Together, Anything is Possible: Report of the Timor-Leste and Australia Conciliation Commission

Report commented on: Report and Recommendations of the Compulsory Conciliation Commission between Timor-Leste and Australia on the Timor Sea, Registry, Permanent Court of Arbitration, 9 May 2018

The Conciliation Commission in the dispute between Timor-Leste and Australia with respect to a permanent maritime boundary in the Timor Sea has now issued its final Report and Recommendations on what must be recorded as an exceptionally successful conciliation exercise. The report documents the process of shepherding the Parties to the conclusion and signature of the Treaty between the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste and Australia Establishing their Maritime Boundaries in the Timor Sea, New York, March 6, 2018. This treaty not only establishes permanent maritime boundaries between the two States it also establishes (Annex B) a joint development regime for the Greater Sunrise and Troubadour deposits that fall on either side of the agreed maritime boundary. The Report also documents the ultimately unsuccessful efforts of the Commission to facilitate the Parties in reaching agreement on a development concept for the Greater Sunrise Field. In dealing with a set of issues that went beyond that of delimitation, the Report illustrates the flexibility of conciliation procedures to address (with the consent of the Parties) a broader suite of issues than could be accommodated in a more formal and constrained adjudication procedure.

Read More

Duty to Consult in the Bigstone Pipeline Case: A Northern Gateway Sequel and TMX Prequel?

By

On June 6, 2018

In Aboriginal, Energy

By: David. V Wright

PDF Version: Duty to Consult in the Bigstone Pipeline Case: A Northern Gateway Sequel and TMX Prequel?

Case commented on: Bigstone Cree Nation v. Nova Gas Transmission Ltd., 2018 FCA 89

While all eyes are on the Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) pipeline saga, especially the political spats and constitutional law dimensions (clear as much of that law may be), the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) released a decision in early May that is directly on-point with respect to legal challenges brought by Indigenous groups against the TMX project approval (consolidated by the FCA into one case). Bigstone Cree Nation v. Nova Gas Transmission Ltd. engages the same legislative scheme as the court challenges against the Northern Gateway Project (NGP), which was decided by the Court in Gitxaala Nation v. Canada, 2016 FCA 187, and at issue in TMX – i.e. the post-2012 integrated NEB Act – CEAA 2012 review and approval regime. This post has two parts. In the first part, I focus on a few notable points of law that the FCA reiterated in Bigstone. In the second part, I move on to discuss how this appears to be an important duty to consult trilogy in the making, with this latest case providing hints toward the FCA upholding the TMX Order in Council (OIC) and Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN or certificate). The FCA’s TMX decision is due out soon.

Read More

Criminal Law Rules! The Contextual Use of Criminal Law Principles and Charter Values in Groia v The Law Society of Upper Canada

By

On June 5, 2018

In Criminal, Ethics and the Legal Profession

By: Lisa Ann Silver

PDF Version: Criminal Law Rules! The Contextual Use of Criminal Law Principles and Charter Values in Groia v The Law Society of Upper Canada

Case Commented On: Groia v The Law Soceity of Upper Canada, 2018 SCC 27

The hot off the presses decision in Groia v The Law Society of Upper Canada confirms my belief that criminal law matters in all areas of law. Criminal law principles are foundational and have a reach beyond criminal case law. This is most evident in the rules of evidence where those principles do not distinguish between areas of law. Evidence is evidence no matter the context. It is the courtroom that gives the rules of evidence its perspective, not any particular area of law. There is a caveat to that proposition: some evidential rules blossom and find deeper meaning in the criminal law context where Charter rights provide a signpost to evidential rulings. In many ways, Groia borrows from the texture of criminal law, not only in the specific areas I will touch upon in this blog posting. The concept of fearless and resolute advocacy, peppered throughout the Groia decision, defines the criminal defence lawyer’s duty to her client. A client who faces the ultimate sanction of our justice system, a potential loss of liberty and societal condemnation. In some ways, the fact that Justice Moldaver, who authored the majority decision in Groia and began his litigation career as a criminal lawyer, references criminal law principles in the Groia judgment should not surprise anyone. Yet, to see not only outright usage of criminal principles but to also detect an almost metaphysical reliance on criminal law analysis brings a welcome richness to this decision. It also helps that the case is situated in a quasi-criminal law environment as a prosecution by the securities commission. A prosecution with a decidedly criminal law bent as Jay Naster started his career as a Crown prosecutor.

Read More

Page 150 of 436

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén