ABLawg

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal’s Marriage Commissioners Decision – What are the Implications for Alberta?

On January 18, 2011

Case and Legislation Commented On: In the Matter of Marriage Commissioners Appointed under the Marriage Act, SS 1995, c M-4.1, 2011 SKCA 3; Marriage Act, RSA 2000, c M-5

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruled last week on the constitutionality of proposed amendments to Saskatchewan’s Marriage Act, S.S. 1995, c.M-41, which would have allowed marriage commissioners to decline to perform marriage ceremonies that were contrary to their religious beliefs. The Court found that the proposed amendments violated the equality rights of gays and lesbians under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that this violation could not be justified under section 1 of the Charter because the Saskatchewan government had not minimally impaired the rights of same sex couples in the way it had set out the proposed scheme for religious exemptions.

What are the implications of the decision in Alberta? Surprisingly, the Marriage Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-5, still defines marriage as “marriage between a man and a woman” (section 1(c); see also the preamble), even though in 2004 the Supreme Court confirmed that the power to determine whether same sex couples have the capacity to marry belongs to the federal government under section 91(26) of the Constitution Act 1867 (Reference re Same-Sex Marriage, 2004 SCC 79, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 698). While the Alberta government tried to shield the law by using section 33 of the Charter, the notwithstanding clause, that clause could not have saved the invalidity of the Act on division of powers grounds, and the relevant section of the Marriage Act expired in 2005 in any event. Furthermore, Alberta marriage commissioners have been performing same sex marriages in this province since 2005 in spite of the heteronormative definition in the Marriage Act. An attempt to bring in a law similar to that ruled upon in the Saskatchewan case was defeated when Bill 208, the Protection of Fundamental Freedoms (Marriage) Statutes Amendment Act, 2006, was blocked by members of Alberta’s opposition parties. This Bill would have amended the Marriage Act and human rights legislation to protect marriage commissioners who refused to perform same sex marriages on religious or moral grounds. On the face of it then, marriage commissioners in Alberta do not have the sort of opting out protection that was considered in the Saskatchewan case.

Melissa Luhtanen of the Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre will be providing further analysis of the Saskatchewan case and its implications in Alberta on ABlawg; readers may also be interested in this post on the case by Denise Réaume on the Women’s Court of Canada blog.

Down on the Kerrs’ Farm: A Comment on the Reports of Alleged Carbon Dioxide Leaks from Cenovus’ Weyburn Project

By Nigel Bankes

On January 17, 2011

In Carbon Capture and Storage

By: Nigel Bankes

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is not yet a proven technology at commercial scales. It is true that we have had considerable experience with analogies including acid gas disposal projects, natural gas storage projects and enhanced oil recovery (EOR) projects (involving the injection of carbon dioxide as a miscible flood). We also have some international experience especially in the North Sea with CO2 injection projects not linked to EOR, but elsewhere, commercial scale CCS projects are just getting underway. And there is nothing that would stop or seriously slow the adoption of CCS more quickly than a significant failure in one of the early projects.

For some this would be no bad thing – particularly for the climate skeptics, those who believe that human induced global warming is not happening. Others accept the reality of global warming but are philosophically opposed to CCS as a means of mitigating emissions. The challenge for this group is to identify realistic alternatives if we remove CCS as an option. Yes, energy conservation and the widespread and aggressive adoption of renewables will get us a long way, and for some nuclear energy is an important part of the solution, but national mitigation strategies often adopt a “wedge” that represents the contribution that CCS can make to meeting national mitigation targets (see for example, the work of the National Round Table on the Economy and the Environment). If we lose the CCS wedge we need to find other mitigation strategies that can deliver over the next ten to twenty years.

This is what is so troubling about the reports (see below) that are emerging from Saskatchewan in which the Kerr family alleges that they are experiencing harms from carbon dioxide leaking from the enhanced oil recovery operation of Encana (now Cenovus) in the Weyburn Field in Saskatchewan. This project (which is an EOR project and not a CCS project) has been extensively and intensively studied since 2000 by an international group of scientists and has been adopted by the International Energy Agency as a pilot project to encourage learning for future CCS projects (see here).

Introducing LawNet Alberta, formerly known as ACJNet Alberta

By Admin

On January 14, 2011

In Access to Justice, Blogs and Websites, Legal Education

Thanks to the Alberta Law Foundation, the Access to Justice Network, ACJNet, a well-known Canadian public legal information and education site, has been comprehensively restructured and re-launched as three attractive web portals: LawNet Alberta, LawNet Canada, and LawNet Français. The new LawNet Alberta portal has some interesting new features, including a Special Topics section that features items related to issues of interest to Albertans. That section currently includes information on topics such as “Full Body Scanners in Airports”, “Grandparents’ Rights” and “Privacy and Facebook.”

Is R v Gomboc really only about a homeowner’s expectation of privacy or is there more to it?

By Brian Seaman

On January 12, 2011

In Constitutional, Criminal, Supreme Court of Canada

PDF version: Is R v Gomboc really only about a homeowner’s expectation of privacy or is there more to it?

Case commented on: R. v. Gomboc, 2010 SCC 55

The late November 2010 decision of Canada’s Supreme Court in R. v. Gomboc has come to represent one of two things in the divergent views of its critics and supporters. For critics from a civil libertarian perspective, our highest court’s approval of a power company’s act, pursuant to a warrantless police request, of monitoring a homeowner’s electrical usage and then providing that information to police engaged in a criminal investigation represents yet another example of a culture of authoritarianism that seems to be creeping into Canada’s judiciary. On the other hand, for the “law and order” crowd, especially those who see warrants as pesky obstacles to simply letting the police get on with it and just do their jobs, homeowners have no reasonable expectation of privacy over information about their electrical usage, so the Supreme Court’s decision that an authorizing warrant was not required is spot on. Furthermore, even if there was a breach of any privacy interest a person may have here, then it was so trivial that any fuss over it is unwarranted.

SARA has a spine as well as teeth

By Nigel Bankes

On January 3, 2011

In Environmental, Protection of Species

PDF version: SARA has a spine as well as teeth

Case commented on: David Suzuki Foundation v. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of the Environment, 2010 FC 1233

Eighteen months ago I blogged on Justice Zinn’s decision in Alberta Wilderness Association v. Canada (Minister of the Environment), 2009 FC 710. The decision dealt with the government’s failure to designate critical habitat for the greater sage grouse under the federal Species at Risk Act, S.C. 2002, c. 29 (SARA) as part of the development of a recovery plan. I thought that Justice Zinn’s decision confirmed that the Courts were prepared to give SARA a fairly robust interpretation and hence I suggested that the legislation was starting to “grow teeth”.