Page 2

Case Commented On: R v Kruk, 2024 SCC 7 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Myths, Stereotypes, and Substantive Equality

Canada’s legal frameworks related to substantive equality and sexual assault law have led to a robust body of jurisprudence on myths and stereotypes about sexual violence. The Supreme Court of Canada first used the language of myths and stereotypes in R v Lavallee, 1990 CanLII 95 (SCC), [1990] 1 SCR 852. In Lavallee, Justice Bertha Wilson repudiated the myth that real victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) will leave their abusers, noting that there are many reasons why women may be unable to do so. A year later, the Court identified several myths and stereotypes about sexual assault, including the “twin myths” that women with a sexual history are more likely to have consented to the alleged sexual activity or that they are less worthy of belief (see R v Seaboyer, 1991 CanLII 76 (SCC), [1991] 2 SCR 577; most recently see R v TWW, 2024 SCC 19 (CanLII)). In the decades since, numerous myths and stereotypes about gender-based violence (GBV) have been debunked by the Supreme Court (see here), and in cases where such misconceptions have infected trial decisions, errors of law have been found on appeal.

UCP Grievance and Culture-War Politics Enter Schools

By Shaun Fluker

On November 28, 2024

In Law Reform, Youth and the Law

By: Shaun Fluker and JD Students in the Public Interest Law Clinic

Bill Commented On: Bill 27 Education Amendment Act, 2024, 1^st Sess, 31^st Leg, 2024 (passed second reading Nov 19)

PDF Version: UCP Grievance and Culture-War Politics Enter Schools

On October 31 the Minister of Education introduced Bill 27 into the Alberta Legislature with the following comments: “The bill will provide clarity, consistency, and transparency to education policies in schools across Alberta. Parents across the province want to be more involved and have a larger say in their child’s education, and we are happy to strengthen their involvement through these proposed amendments.” This is a very bland introduction for a Bill that, if passed, will amend the Education Act, SA 2012, c E-0.3, to accomplish three objectives: (1) restrict the ability of schools to implement public health emergency measures; (2) require Ministerial approval of curriculum materials on gender identity, sexual orientation, and human sexuality; and (3) restrict the liberty of youth to use gender affirming names or pronouns in school. Bill 27 also grants a lot more than just a ‘larger say’ to parents – the amendments to the Education Act in the Bill grant parental control over the application of public health emergency measures, the delivery of educational materials on gender identity, sexual orientation, and human sexuality, and the use of gender affirming names or pronouns in schools. Suffice it to say, this is not what governing in the public interest looks like.

New Alberta Access to Information Law Part 1: More Secrecy

By Drew Yewchuk

On November 20, 2024

In Access to Information

By: Drew Yewchuk

Matter Commented On: Bill 34: Access to Information Act

PDF Version: New Alberta Access to Information Law Part 1: More Secrecy

On 6 November 2024, the United Conservative Party introduced two bills that would repeal the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSA 2000, c F-25 (FOIP) and replace it with separate statutes for personal information held by provincial government agencies (Bill 33: Protection of Privacy Act) and the public accessibility and secrecy of government records (Bill 34: Access to Information Act).

Modernizing Professional Regulation is a Worthwhile Goal

By Collin May

On November 19, 2024

In Access to Justice, Ethics and the Legal Profession

By: Collin May

Matter Commented On: Review of Alberta Professional Regulation

PDF Version: Modernizing Professional Regulation is a Worthwhile Goal

Recently, more than one commentator has dismissed the Alberta government’s recent promises to reform professional regulation, including our own regulator, the Law Society of Alberta, as little more than grievance politics (see Shaun Fluker’s comment, here). However, the need to modernize Canada’s rather dated professional regulatory regime, with its excessive emphasis on self-governance, has been evident to many of us for a while now.

The Draft Alberta Quantification Protocol for CO2 Capture and Permanent Geologic Sequestration, Version 2

By Nigel Bankes

On November 18, 2024

In Energy, Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes

Document Commented On: Draft Quantification Protocol for CO₂ Capture and Permanent Geologic Sequestration v2.0, November 1, 2024

PDF Version: The Draft Alberta Quantification Protocol for CO₂ Capture and Permanent Geologic Sequestration, Version 2

Nearly ten years ago I posted an ABlawg comment on a draft of the first version of this Offset Quantification Protocol. The Quantification Protocol (QP) was developed at that time so as to be ready for when Shell’s Quest Project came on stream. A QP is designed to establish the circumstances under which a project, in this case a carbon capture and storage (CCS) project, might generate offset credits under Alberta’s CO₂emissions legislation and regulations, which could then be used to meet the compliance obligations of a regulated emitter. At that time, the relevant regulation was the Specified Gas Emitter Regulation, Alta Reg 139/2007 (SGER); the current regulation is the Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction Regulation, Alta Reg 133/2019 (TIER Regulation). My earlier post identified a number of issues that remain pertinent today, including the transparency of the process, issues of liability in the event of a reversal, and a question as to the apportionment of regulatory responsibilities between the mechanisms of the QP and the responsibility of the energy regulator (then the Energy Resources Conservation Board, now the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER)) for scheme approvals for injection activities. This latter point continues to present some difficulties in the current draft of Version 2.0, particularly with respect to monitoring for containment assurance, which is explicitly dealt with in s 5.1.6 and Appendix C of the Draft QP (but also relevant to the sections of the QP dealing with reversals). I explore these issues in more detail below.