Constitutional and
Human Rights Section
About the Section
The Section provides topical CLE programming dealing with constitutional issues in the context of administrative and benefits law, criminal law and public law, and with human rights issues. Regular features include the 10 Best and Worst Cases of the Year, one (session?) with a focus on human rights and one with a focus on Charter jurisprudence.
Click here to get information on the corresponding CBA National Section.
Section Executive
Co-Chair
Mark Toews
Deeley Fabbri Sellen Law
Corporation
903-386 Broadway
Winnipeg, MB R3C 3R6
Phone: 977-3857
Fax: 956-4457
mtoews@dfslaw.ca |
Co-Chair
Michael Conner
Manitoba Justice -
Constitutional Law
1205-405 Broadway
Winnipeg, MB R3C 3L6
Phone: 945-6723
Fax: 945-0053
michael.conner@gov.mb.ca |
Member-at-Large
Jamie Jurczak
Taylor McCaffrey LLP
900-400 St. Mary Ave
Winnipeg, MB R3C 4K5
Phone: 988-0393
Fax: 953-7179
jjurczak@tmlawyers.com |
|
| |
|
Upcoming Section Events
ABORIGINAL LAW SECTION
CONSTITUTIONAL/HUMAN RIGHTS SECTION
LABOUR LAW SECTION
NOTICE OF JOINT MEETING
DATE: Friday, June 1, 2012
TIME: 12:00 Noon – 1:30pm
LOCATION: Law Society of Manitoba Classroom, 219 Kennedy Street, Winnipeg
TOPIC: Case Law Update: NIL/TU,O and Labour Relations in the First Nations context
SPEAKERS:
Michael Conner, Manitoba Justice, Constitutional Law Branch
Mark Toews, Deeley Fabbri Sellen Law Corporation
Labour relations and employment law generally fall under provincial jurisdiction with the exception of federal works and undertakings. Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction to pass laws in relation to Indians and lands reserved for Indians. When do provincial laws apply to First Nations or on Reserve? In particular, how do you determine whether the labour relations of a business or undertaking involving First Nations are governed by provincial or federal labour and employment laws? Is it appropriate to assume that the Canada Labour Code provisions apply in such circumstances? Please join us for a discussion of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in NIL/TU,O Child & Family Services Society v. B.C.G.E.U., 2010 SCC 45 and how it has been applied in Manitoba.
Please RSVP to the Manitoba Bar Association online. You can also RSVP by calling the RSVP Line @ 927-1211 or email (sections@cba-mb.ca) by 12:00 Noon on Thursday, May 31, 2012. Please confirm if you would like lunch (sandwiches) and advise of any dietary restrictions. Lunch is available upon advanced request at a cost of $7.00.
Attendance at this MBA Section meeting can be applied towards your Law Society of Manitoba's Continuing Professional Development requirement.
The MBA is committed to making Section meetings widely available. If you live outside of the City of Winnipeg and want to attend a Section meeting by teleconference, please contact Melissa Tannahill (204) 927-1215 or email sections@cba-mb.ca before 4:00 pm on Friday, May 25, 2012.
Past Section Events
October 18, 2010, 5:00pm (Woodsworth Building): The Charter, Police Powers and Protest in the Streets: Reflections on the G20 Protests and their Aftermath
June 9, 2010, 12:00 Noon (Law Society Classroom): 25 years of s. 15
Section Reports
2009-2010
2010-2011
Articles Posted Include:
2011 Mid-Winter CPD - Impaired Driving Primer
Charter Issues in the Impaired Driving Context – Cynthia Devine
This paper provides an overview of Charter issues that arise in impaired driving cases and outlines the process for when a Charter motion is brought before the courts.
2010 Mid-Winter CPD - Detention and Section 24(2) of the Charter: Where do we go from here?
Welcome Flexibility and Better Criteria From the Supreme Court of Canada for Exclusion of Evidence Obtained in Violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Professor Don Stuart
This paper examines the Grant and Harrison decisions, assessing changes of directions including discoverability, abandoning of conscripted and non-conscripted distinction, and the police “good faith” mitigating the seriousness of the breach. The R. v. Grant decision and its companion ruling of R. v. Harrison looked at section 24(2) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The rulings expand the test of section 24(2) to examine the conduct of the police or the seriousness of the breach of rights, and the interest of the accused as well as, the seriousness of the offence. The authors also contrast between the United States approach and the recent Canadian rulings. The author sees the test focusing on the seriousness of the violation rather than the seriousness of the offence as a large and much needed change within the Canadian law.
Detention and the Charter – The Decisions in Mann, Grant and Suberu – by Eugene Szach
In this paper, Eugene Szach discusses the use of the Charter, s. 10(b) as an expression of the principle against self incrimination. The author draws a distinction between questioning and detention and how the Charter jurisprudence does not protect through the confessions rule when the suspect is not in fact being detained. The paper also examines the power imbalance and psychological state of detention that an individual feels when confronted by the police for what is, according to the police, only questioning. This paper also flags a number of potential issues arising from the psychological detention as recognized in the cases of Grant and Suberu.
Sex and the Supreme Court – Obscenity and Indecency from Butler to Labaye – Professor Brenda Cossman
This article was presented as a CLE at the 2008 Mid-Winter meeting. Professor Cossman starts with a brief overview of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. Labaye and the community standards test that arose from this decision. She then proceeds to give her personal view that rather than being a decision about indecency, as it appears on the surface, this decision was based on “sexual morality and the legal repression of sexual representation.” Professor Cossman then proceeds through a very brief summary of some decisions based on the community standards test. Finally, Professor Cossman explains the decision of the court in R. v. Labaye and how the two-part harm test that arose from this decision is a much better test than the community standards test. She explains the process of applying the two-step test, and finishes by questioning public reaction to the decision.
Prosecuting and Defending the “Sexy” Cases Post Labaye and Kouri – Sarah Inness
This article was presented as a CLE at the 2008 Mid-winter meeting. Ms. Inness explains the test that arose out of the companion decision of R. v. Labaye and R. v. Kouri. She argues that while a theoretical analysis and understanding of the Supreme Court’s shift to a pure harm based test is important and will invariably be relevant to prosecuting or defending these types of cases. The paper then summarizes the law and sets out the basic “nuts and bolts” of proving/defending such cases. Ms. Inness argues that it is important for both sides to appreciate the test, and explains the standard of proof and the evidentiary requirements now held by the Supreme Court of Canada to be mandatory, at least insofar as the prosecution of indecency is concerned.
Beyond Marriage: Current Issues in Gay and Lesbian Rights Litigation – Associate Professor Debra Parkes
This article was presented as a CLE at the 2008 Mid-Winter meeting. In the article, Professor Parkes briefly summarizes important cases that have dealt with gay and lesbian rights. She then proceeds to a discussion of issues that have emerged as a result of these rulings, especially in the areas of health law and remaining criminal prohibitions that may have a disproportionate impact on members of the gay and lesbian community. Professor Parkes finishes with a brief discussion of the controversy about how to balance religious rights with those of gay and lesbian individuals when it comes to same-sex marriage, with a focus on the cases involving marriage commissioners.
|
|
