Photo: flickr/Government of Alberta

There are a number of ABlawg posts dealing with the issue of whether the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) applies to universities (see: Face-ing the Charter’s Application on University Campuses; University Campus is not Charter-Free; Freedom of Expression, Universities and Anti-Choice Protests). Many of these decisions involve freedom of expression, which is considered to be a very important element of university life (e.g., for academic freedom, free discussion and debate of ideas). Recently, I posted about a case involving the University of Victoria (see Does the Charter Apply to Universities? Pridgen Distinguished in U Vic Case) in which the British Columbia Supreme Court did not follow the judgment of Alberta Court of Appeal Justice Paperny in Pridgen v University of Calgary, 2012 ABCA 139. Although the case law synthesized by Justice Paperny was not determinative in Pridgen, her judgment provides an excellent, logical synthesis of how the precedents on the application of the Charter should be applied in various contexts, including universities. This post discusses the BCCA decision on the University of Victoria case.

Read More

Photo: flickr/Privacy Online

The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSA 2000, c. F-25 (“FOIPPA”, or “the Act”) outlines the obligations of a public body to provide access to records, including access to your own personal information. The overall purpose of the Act (s 2) is to balance our right to access records in the custody and control of public bodies, like the City, with protecting the privacy of individuals by controlling the manner in which public bodies collect, use and disclose personal information. Although there are exceptions to accessing records, these are limited, and interpretation of the Act should be made with the goal of maximum disclosure. As citizens, we have a right to know what information about ourselves is being held by a public body. For example, if someone is making a complaint about us we have a right to know the details so we can defend ourselves. Disclosure by the public body allows citizens to participate in decisions in a more informed and meaningful way.

Read More

Photo: flickr/Stephanie Watson

From time to time, concerns are expressed about the length of time human rights complaints take to resolve. There are some circumstances where resolution of these cases does seem to take too long. Unfortunately, those who criticize the existence of human rights commissions often take these occasional delayed cases as opportunities to add fuel to their calls for elimination. However, an examination of the circumstances surrounding the delays, which only occur in a small fraction of human rights cases, helps to assess possible alternative solutions.

Read More

Photo: flickr/Freedom House

Canada fulfilled its commitment of providing humanitarian assistance to 25 thousand Syrian refugees in March 2016. This provides an opportunity to examine Canada’s actions to address the crisis in the context of the country’s legal obligations for the protection of refugees. This post suggests further measures to address refugee resettlement more effectively.

Read More

Photo: flickr/ David Bleasdale

This blog post has been reposted with permission from www.ablawg.ca

In an earlier post with Jason Wai, we discussed the decision of the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal (AHRT), in which Mr. Ladislav Mihaly succeeded in arguing that the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA) discriminated against him on the grounds of place of origin, when it refused to recognize his education as the equivalent of an engineering degree from an accredited Canadian University, and by requiring him to write certain examinations to confirm his credentials. The AHRT also concluded that APEGA could not justify its registration requirements. Thus, Mihaly was successful in his claim of discrimination and was awarded $10,000 for injury to dignity. The AHRT declined to award lost wages to Mihaly.

Read More

Photo: flickr/Martin Deutsch

The Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower Protection) Act came into force on June 1, 2013. Although the idea of having legislation in Alberta was generally well received, the Whistleblower Protection Act was critiqued as being inadequate and partial. Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre (ACLRC) has gathered the research and commentary on this legislation and has set out the suggestions for amendments to make this Act more effective.

Read More

Bill S-4, the Digital Privacy Act came into force on June 18, 2015 to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). The Government of Canada Backgrounder stated that “Canada’s Digital Privacy Act provides important improvements to Canada’s private sector privacy legislation, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA)” and that it “will ensure that Canadians are safer and more secure when they surf the web or shop online”. However, experts and critics contend that it will open the floodgate to warrantless data-sharing and will become an extensive threat to the privacy rights it apparently aims to preserve. (Michael Geist, “Why the Digital Privacy Act Undermines Our Privacy: Bill S-4 Risks Widespread Warrantless Disclosure,” (Blog), 10 April 2014. Online: <http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2014/04/s-4-post/>).

Photo: Alpha/flickr

Read More