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

The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench recently rejected an application to judicially review the dismissal of a meritorious human rights claim. Why? The self-represented applicant did not name and serve the correct respondent on time. The fatality of this misstep would have been reasonably evident to any lawyer familiar with the Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010  and case law governing judicial review. For self-represented litigants, however (and particularly those coming from the relatively forgiving forum of the Alberta Human Rights Commission) this is just one of the endless procedural landmines that can destroy their claim.

photo: Sacramento County Public Law Library/flickr

On June 11th 2015 the final host of amendments created under the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act (Bill C-24) came into force.  Among those were amendments to section 10 of the Citizenship Act, RSC 1985, c C-29 [Citizenship Act] greatly expanding the government’s ability to revoke Canadian citizenship. The amendments apply to naturalized Canadians, dual citizens and Canadian-born citizens who are eligible to obtain dual citizenship (Citizenship Act). Prior to Bill C-24, only naturalized citizenship could be revoked, and revocation was limited to cases where citizenship was obtained by means of fraud or false pretenses (Parliamentary Information and Research Service, Legislative Summary of Bill C-24: An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts by Julie Béchard, Penny Becklumb, & Sandra Elgersma (Ottawa: Library of Parliament, 2014), online: <http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/LegislativeSummaries/41/2/c24-e.pdf> [Legislative Summary]).  Now treason, terrorism, aiding the enemy, espionage, and communicating safeguarded or operational information have been added to the list of exile-worthy offences  (Legislative Summary). 

Photo: Doug/flickr

Once again, the Human Rights Tribunal has been asked to address the issue of mandatory retirement for school bus drivers in Alberta. In an earlier case involving a preliminary hearing, Pelley and Albers v Northern Gateway Regional School Division No 76, 2012 AHRC 2 (Pelly and Albers), the Tribunal held that the School Division was an “employer” for the purposes of the Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000 cA-25.5 (AHRA), section 7. (See: www.ablawg.ca/2012/04/01/alberta-human-rights-tribunal-distinguishes-lockerbie-and-moves-away-from-constrictive-definition-of-employment/).

Photo: dhendrix73/flickr

Syncrude Canada Ltd v Saunders, 2015 ABQB 237, case highlights the role of the appeal court in reviewing Human Rights Tribunal decisions, and the effect of the claimant’s credibility on proving discrimination on the basis of disability or perceived disability.

Photo: And parsecs to go/flickr

Mandatory minimums are a hotly contested issue in Canadian Criminal Law. In R v Nur, the Supreme Court of Canada weighed in on whether mandatory minimum sentences impose cruel and unusual punishment on offenders. What makes this particular sentencing provision interesting is that it allows the Crown to proceed either by way of summary or indictment, with only the latter carrying the minimum sentence of three years. The Dissent viewed this as a safety valve preventing less blameworthy offenders from being subject to the mandatory minimum. This view was rejected by the Majority.

photo: Keary O./flickr