The Justice Minister’s Take on Current Human Rights and Civil Liberties Issues in Alberta

PDF version: The Justice Minister’s Take on Current Human Rights and Civil Liberties Issues in Alberta

On January 25, 2013, Alberta Justice Minister Jonathan Denis spoke to a crowd of about 50 people gathered by the Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership and the Rocky Mountain Civil Liberties Association. The audience included lawyers, educators, government folks, NGO representatives, and advocates for human rights and civil liberties. Minister Denis delivered remarks on current human rights and civil liberties issues in the province and also took questions from the audience. His remarks and the Q + A covered issues concerning access to justice, the government’s position on the fate of sections 3 and 11.1 of the Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c A-25.5 (AHRA), Alberta’s new drinking and driving law, and peaceful protests, all of which will be explored in this post.

Continue reading →

The Legality of Legal Advising

PDF version: The Legality of Legal Advising

Matter considered: Edgar Schmidt v Canada (AG) Federal Court File #T-2225-12.

Introduction

On December 13, 2012 Edgar Schmidt, a Department of Justice lawyer, filed a Statement of Claim in Federal Court naming the federal Attorney General as Defendant. The Statement of Claim alleges that the Minister of Justice and the Deputy Minister of Justice have violated their obligations under various pieces of legislation that impose duties on the Minister of Justice to examine proposed legislation to determine if it is “inconsistent with the purposes and provisions” of the Canadian Bill of Rights or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and to advise the House of Commons if it is so (see in particular: section 3 of the Canadian Bill of Rights, SC 1960, c 44; section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act, RSC 1985 c J-2; section 3(2) and (3) of the Statutory Instruments Act, RSC 1985 c S-22).

Continue reading →

Domestic Violence and Duress: In Search of a Contextual Approach

PDF version: Domestic Violence and Duress: In Search of a Contextual Approach

Case commented on: R v Ryan, 2013 SCC 3.

 On Friday January 18, the Supreme Court released its decision in R v Ryan.  In a decision written by Justices LeBel and Cromwell, the Court held that Nicole Doucet (formerly Ryan) could not avail herself of the defence of duress in circumstances where she attempted to hire someone to kill her abusive husband.  This ruling followed Ms Doucet’s acquittal for counselling murder at trial, which was upheld by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. Although the Supreme Court paid some attention to Ms Doucet’s circumstances by ultimately staying the proceedings against her (with Fish, J dissenting on this point), its analysis of the defence of duress was sorely lacking in context.

Continue reading →

When does aggressive panhandling become robbery?

PDF version: When does aggressive panhandling become robbery?

Case commented on: R v Ajang, 2012 ABCA 364.

 This case addresses the relationship between members of society who are homeless or poor, and those who are uncomfortable and/or threatened by homeless or poor people, when they are asking for money. Mr. Ajang was charged with robbery under section 343(c) of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985 c C-46, which states that everyone commits robbery who assaults a person with intent to steal. The Trial Judge (Judge P.M. McIlhargey) found Ajang guilty of assault, but acquitted him of robbery. The Crown appealed this acquittal and the matter was heard by Justices Connie Hunt, Patricia Rowbotham and Brian O’Ferrall. The Court of Appeal overturned the acquittal and found that there was sufficient evidence of an intent to steal to support a conviction for robbery.

Continue reading →

The right to trap in traditional territory: a case of competing normative orders?

PDF version: The right to trap in traditional territory: a case of competing normative orders?

Decision commented on: Cooper and Boucher v Ganter and HMQA, 2012 ABQB 695.

I don’t actually know if this is a case of competing normative orders but it sure looks like it. More formally and abstractly this decision confirms that a claimant cannot avoid the six month limitation rule for judicial review proceedings by commencing an action by way of a statement of claim.

Continue reading →