ABLawg - - Page 279

Case commented on: R v Booyink, 2013 ABPC 185

If the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (“CCBR”) hasn’t yet made an appearance in your town, city or neighbourhood, chances are they soon will. The CCBR is an educational, pro-life activist organization devoted to the stated objective of making Canada abortion-free. Its goals are to expose as many Canadians as possible to images of, and to engage directly in conversations about, abortion. The CCBR sees its messaging as educational in nature which might include any of the following strategies:

Imagine opening your mail box to find a gripping pro-life postcard showing “invisible” aborted children.
Then imagine walking down the street and seeing a poster of an abortion victim hanging from a pole in your neighbourhood.
Walking further, you see activists holding signs and engage in dialogue about abortion.
Then imagine driving through traffic and seeing a large truck with abortion imagery on its side and rear panels. (See Unmasking Choice – CAUTION – the CCBR may post graphic images)

The Ethical Problem with the Quebec Charter of Values

By Alice Woolley

On September 14, 2013

In Ethics and the Legal Profession

PDF Version: The Ethical Problem with the Quebec Charter of Values

Policy considered: Quebec Charter of Values

Even prior to this week’s publication of Quebec’s proposed Charter of Values, its prohibition of “ostentatious” religious symbols being worn by public employees had come under heavy criticism. Critics suggested that it violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms through its interference with religious freedom. They also suggested that it violated international and domestic human rights laws. On this blog Jennifer Koshan noted the discrepancy between the Charter of Values and the constitutional values recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference (here).

The Quebec Secession Reference and the Proposed Charter of Quebec Values

By Jennifer Koshan

On September 12, 2013

In Constitutional

PDF Version: The Quebec Secession Reference and the Proposed Charter of Quebec Values

Case/Policy considered: Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217; Charter of Quebec Values

It’s as if Pauline Marois and her government knew we would be discussing the Quebec Secession Reference case in constitutional law this week when they finally released their plans for a Charter of Quebec Values on September 10. The Quebec Secession Reference case famously decided that Quebec did not have the unilateral right to secede from Canada under domestic or international law. It is also taught by many constitutional law professors as our first case, given its important pronouncements on sources of constitutional law and Canada’s constitutional history and values. The constitutional values – actually unwritten principles of constitutional law – that the Supreme Court found to be relevant in the context of Quebec secession were federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and respect for minorities (at para 32). The Court’s elaboration on these principles takes on a new relevance in light of Quebec’s proposed Charter.

The Crown Owes No Duty to Consult Indigenous Communities Before Ratifying a Bilateral Investment Treaty

By Nigel Bankes

On September 10, 2013

In Aboriginal, International Law

PDF Version: The Crown Owes No Duty to Consult Indigenous Communities Before Ratifying a Bilateral Investment Treaty

Case commented on: Hupacasath First Nation v Minister of Foreign Affairs Canada and the Attorney General of Canada, 2013 FC 2009

In this case Chief Justice Crampton of the Federal Court Trial Division rejected the application of the claimant Hupacasath First Nation (HFN) for a declaration that Canada is required to engage in a process of consultation and accommodation with First Nations, including HFN, prior to ratifying or taking other specific steps that will bind Canada to the terms of the Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the People’s Republic of China for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments (CCFIPPA) (text available here). It was common ground (at paras 11 and 12) that while the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade had consulted with stakeholders, that consultation did not extend to HFN or other First Nations.

Advance Costs and Trusts: Little Sisters and Okanagan Distinguished

By MaryWyatt Sindlinger

On September 9, 2013

In Aboriginal, Access to Justice

PDF Version: Advance Costs and Trusts: Little Sisters and Okanagan Distinguished

Case commented on: 1985 Sawridge Trust v Alberta (Public Trustee), 2013 ABCA 226

The Alberta Court of Appeal recently upheld an award of advance costs originally granted in 1985 Sawridge Trust v Alberta (Public Trustee), 2013 ABCA 226. In so doing, the Court of Appeal distinguished British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v Okanagan Indian Band, 2003 SCC 71, [2003] 3 SCR 371 [Okanagan] and Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v Canada (Commissioner of Customs and Revenue), 2007 SCC 2, [2007] 1 SCR 38 [Little Sisters (No.2)] concluding that the strict requirements of Little Sisters and Okanagan did not apply in the unique, non-adversarial circumstances of Sawridge Trust.

Read More

R v Booyink: A Non-Stop Charter(ed) Flight to Protest in Canadian Airports?

The Ethical Problem with the Quebec Charter of Values

The Quebec Secession Reference and the Proposed Charter of Quebec Values

The Crown Owes No Duty to Consult Indigenous Communities Before Ratifying a Bilateral Investment Treaty

Advance Costs and Trusts: Little Sisters and Okanagan Distinguished