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

Domestic Violence and Legal Responses to COVID-19 in Alberta

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: Domestic Violence and Legal Responses to COVID-19 in Alberta

Matters Commented On: Ministerial Order No 2020-011 (Community and Social Services); Court of Queen’s Bench Of Alberta, Amended Master Order #2 Relating to Court’s Response to the COVID-19 Virus; Court of Queen’s Bench Of Alberta, Pandemic Operations/ FAQ; The Provincial Court of Alberta, COVID-19 Pandemic Planning for the Scheduling of Matters

Many commentators have remarked on how COVID-19 and government orders to self-isolate will lead to increased rates of domestic violence and adversely impact victims of domestic violence seeking protection. Last weekend, for example, UN Secretary General António Guterres remarked that there has already been a “horrifying global surge in domestic violence” and urged “all governments to make the prevention and redress of violence against women a key part of their national response plans for COVID-19.” The law clearly has a significant role to play in this context. As noted in a previous post, domestic violence matters engage many legal issues: civil protection order law, criminal law, family and child protection law, residential tenancies law, social assistance and housing law, and employment law, to name a few. This post reviews some of the efforts of lawmakers and courts in Alberta to respond to domestic violence issues in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and identifies some areas where further measures are needed. My focus is on domestic violence – in other words, violence in the context of intimate partner relationships – rather than child or elder abuse. Child and elder abuse cases also present challenging issues in the current pandemic, but they are beyond the scope of my analysis here.

COVID-19 and the Suspension of Energy Reporting and Well Suspension Requirements in Alberta

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: COVID-19 and the Suspension of Energy Reporting and Well Suspension Requirements in Alberta

Order Commented On: Ministerial Order 219/2020 (Energy)

Section 52.1 of the Public Health Act, RSA 2000, c P-37 provides a minister with power to suspend, modify, or effectively amend the application of legislation which they are responsible for under the Government Organization Act, RSA 2000, c G-10. Ministerial orders exercising this power are being made with increasing frequency during the COVID-19 emergency, and these orders, together with other public health orders issued by Alberta during this crisis, are published here. One should also keep an eye on the Queen’s Printer website for Orders-in-Council which enact new, or amend existing, regulations to address COVID-19. Readers may recall that I previously commented here on Ministerial Order 17/2020 (Environment and Parks) which suspends routine environmental reporting. This post looks at Ministerial Order 219/2020 issued by the Minister of Energy on April 6, 2020 which suspends some reporting and inactive well suspension requirements under energy legislation.

Bill 12: A Small Step Forward in Managing Orphan Liabilities in Alberta

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Bill 12: A Small Step Forward in Managing Orphan Liabilities in Alberta

Matter Commented On: Bill 12, Liabilities Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2020

Bill 12 addresses some issues related to the province’s orphan fund and the responsibilities of the Orphan Well Association (OWA). While my overall conclusion is that the Bill is to be welcomed, the procedure under which the Bill was adopted was unfortunate. Furthermore, while the Bill does plug some gaps and extends the authority of the OWA and the orphan fund in helpful ways, the Bill is most notable for what it doesn’t address. In particular, it does not address the systemic drivers of the growing orphan liability problem in the province.

The Effects of COVID-19 on the Health System: Legal and Ethical Tensions Part II

By: Lorian Hardcastle

PDF Version: The Effects of COVID-19 on the Health System: Legal and Ethical Tensions Part II

Matter Commented On: COVID-19 in Alberta and Canada

Since it appeared in Canada at the end of January, the number of cases of COVID-19 has steadily increased. Despite considerable efforts to contain the spread of the disease, Canada has seen over 1000 new cases per day since late March, with this number reaching 1600 new cases in a single day on April 5. On April 7, 58 people succumbed to the disease in one day. The ongoing COVID-19 outbreak raises numerous pressing legal and ethical tensions. In a previous ABlawg post, I examined the trade-offs that governments have made between individual liberties and protecting the public good. In this post, I consider two additional legal and ethical tensions: health care priority setting in the face of scarce resources and the disproportionate effects of public health measures on vulnerable people.

Being in the Moment: An Analysis of the Supreme Court of Canada’s Decision in R v Chung

By: Lisa Silver

PDF Version: Being in the Moment: An Analysis of the Supreme Court of Canada’s Decision in R v Chung

Case Commented On: R v Chung, 2020 SCC 8 (Can LII)

Mindfulness, according to Jon Kabat-Zinn, the founder of MBSR (mindfulness-based stress reduction), is “the psychological process of bringing one’s attention to the internal and external experiences occurring in the present moment, which can be developed through the practice of meditation and other training.” Leaving aside how one can develop mindfulness, this concept of being “in the moment” has received much attention of late. Mindfulness is everywhere. It focuses on how we can bring more awareness to those reflexive and automatic activities we do throughout the day. This emotional and physical awareness allows us to better control the reactions we have to the stressors of life. Mindfulness also has a place in the legal world as seen in the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in R v Chung, 2020 SCC 8 (Can LII). In that case, the Court, in essence, applies the process of mindfulness to the two issues under consideration; whether the Crown appeal against an acquittal raises a question of law and if so, whether the trial judge erred in applying the incorrect legal test required in assessing the objective mens rea of dangerous driving.

Page 87 of 420

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén