An Open Letter Regarding the Response to Recent Protests at the Universities of Alberta and Calgary

PDF Version: An Open Letter Regarding the Response to Recent Protests at the Universities of Alberta and Calgary

Editor’s Note:

This post is a reproduction of a letter sent by faculty members at the University of Alberta and University of Calgary Faculties of Law to the Presidents of the Universities of Alberta and Calgary, Calgary and Edmonton Police Services, and the Alberta Crown Prosecution Service regarding the response to encampments at the universities on May 9 and 11, 2024.

 May 14, 2024

President Ed McCauley, University of Calgary
president@ucalgary.ca

President Bill Flanagan, University of Alberta
president@ualberta.ca

Alberta Crown Prosecution Service
jsg-acps.calgaryprosecutions@gov.ab.ca
edmontonprosecutions@gov.ab.ca

Chief Mark Neufeld, Calgary Police Service
cps@calgarypolice.ca

Chief Dale McFee, Edmonton Police Service
chief@edmontonpolice.ca

Re: The Response to Recent Protests at the Universities of Alberta and Calgary 

As law professors at the Universities of Alberta and Calgary, we want to express our deep concern about the violent infringement of students’ right to protest by the Calgary Police Service, Edmonton Police Service, University of Calgary, and University of Alberta on May 9 and 11, 2024.

Students have a right to protest on Alberta’s university campuses. Their right to protest is protected by sections 2(b) (freedom of expression), 2(c) (freedom of peaceful assembly), 2(d) (freedom of association, and 7 (right to life, liberty, and security of the person) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Where the right to protest of members of marginalized groups is disproportionately impacted, equality rights may also be engaged. Courts have previously held that tents and temporary structures can be forms of expression attracting Canadian Charter protection (see, e.g., Vancouver v Zhang, 2010 BCCA 450; Batty v City of Toronto, 2011 ONSC 6862).

The Universities’ discretion to serve notices of trespass is not unfettered. The Alberta Court of Appeal has clearly ruled that the regulation of freedom of expression by students on university grounds is a form of governmental action subject to the Charter: UAlberta Pro-Life v Governors of the University of Alberta, 2020 ABCA 1. Students who have erected temporary encampments for the purpose of peaceful protest were served trespass notices almost immediately after setting up and without meaningful engagement, severely constraining their right to protest. Arguments that the trespass notices are justified by fire hazards or other safety or operational issues cannot be sustained in light of the fact that the students do not appear to have been given a meaningful opportunity to understand and rectify any such concerns before the notices were served. In the absence of meaningful engagement, discretionary trespass notices and the decision to call in police to enforce such notices are not reasonable and proportionate limits on Charter rights.

These same rights apply vis-à-vis the Calgary and Edmonton Police Services. By enforcing trespass notices that appear to have been based only on the fear of safety risks and potential operational concerns, the Calgary Police Service and Edmonton Police Service likely violated the Charter rights of students. We are further concerned by the excess force and violence with which the Calgary Police Service and Edmonton Police Service cleared the camps. Video evidence suggests that police officers used force that went far beyond that which was necessary to effect law enforcement purposes. Under the Criminal Code, police officers cannot use force unless it is necessary to effect valid law enforcement purposes and cannot use more force than is necessary; to unnecessarily use force or use more force than necessary may constitute criminal assault and is a violation of the protestors’ right to life, liberty, and security of the person under section 7 of the Charter.

Given the foregoing, we call on:

  • The Alberta Crown Prosecution Service to withdraw all charges against individuals arrested at the student encampments;
  • The Calgary and Edmonton Police Services to refer the incidents to ASIRT for investigation, and/or investigate the incidents themselves to determine if disciplinary sanctions and criminal charges are warranted against officers who used disproportionate force against protesters at the student encampments;
  • The Universities of Alberta and Calgary to revoke their trespass notices; rescind any restrictions on students, staff, faculty, or alumni’s ability to come to campus; apologize to their university communities for serving trespass notices on peaceful protesters; reaffirm their commitment to Charter rights; and allow students to peacefully protest in temporary encampments on university grounds;
  • The Universities of Alberta and Calgary to establish policies for campus protests that establish clear and proportionate parameters for serving trespass notices and require meaningful engagement with protest organizers as well as a reasonable opportunity to address safety and other concerns before serving and enforcing trespass notices.

Sincerely yours,

Sanaa Ahmed, Assistant Professor, University of Calgary Faculty of Law

Sina Akbari, Assistant Professor, University of Alberta Faculty of Law

Sandrine Ampleman-Tremblay, Assistant Professor, University of Alberta Faculty of Law

Florence Ashley, Assistant Professor, University of Alberta Faculty of Law

Nigel Bankes, Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Calgary

Brian Calliou, Assistant Professor, University of Calgary Faculty of Law

Stephanie Chipeur, Azrieli Accelerator Professorship in Law & Disability Policy, Faculty of Law & School of Public Policy, University of Calgary

Maureen Duffy, Associate Professor, University of Calgary Faculty of Law

Shaun Fluker, Associate Professor, University of Calgary Faculty of Law

Robert Hamilton, Associate Professor, University of Calgary Faculty of Law

Lorian Hardcastle, Associate Professor, University of Calgary Faculty of Law

Jennifer Koshan, Professor, Faculty of Law and Research Excellence Chair, University of Calgary

Arlene Kwasniak, Professor Emerita of Law, University of Calgary

Rebeca Macias Gimenez, Assistant Professor, University of Alberta Faculty of Law

Hillary Nye, Associate Professor, University of Alberta Faculty of Law

Ubaka Ogbogu, Professor and Associate Dean Research, Katz Group Chair in Health Law, University of Alberta Faculty of Law

Tamara (Baldhead) Pearl, Assistant Professor, University of Alberta Faculty of Law

Jonnette Watson Hamilton, Professor Emerita of Law, University of Calgary

David Wright, Associate Professor, University of Calgary Faculty of Law


This post may be cited as: Faculty Members at the University of Alberta and University of Calgary Faculties of Law, “An Open Letter Regarding the Response to Recent Protests at the Universities of Alberta and Calgary” (14 May 2024), online: ABlawg, http://ablawg.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Blog_Open_Letter_Re_Recent_Protests_Response.pdf

To subscribe to ABlawg by email or RSS feed, please go to http://ablawg.ca

Follow us on Twitter @ABlawg

 

Posted in Constitutional, Police, Protest | Comments Off on An Open Letter Regarding the Response to Recent Protests at the Universities of Alberta and Calgary

Constitutional Caution, Correction, and Abdication: The Proposed Amendments to the Impact Assessment Act

By: David V. Wright

Matter Commented On: Proposed Amendments to the Federal Impact Assessment Act following Reference re Impact Assessment Act, 2023 SCC 23 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Constitutional Caution, Correction, and Abdication: The Proposed Amendments to the Impact Assessment Act

Last week, the federal government released proposed amendments (beginning at 557) to the Impact Assessment Act (SC 2019, c 28, s 1) (IAA). These come in the wake of Reference re Impact Assessment Act, 2023 SCC 23 (CanLII) (Re IAA), where a 5:2 majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) found the federal impact assessment regime unconstitutional in part. This post briefly sets out the legal backdrop for the proposed amendments, discusses key proposed changes, and then concludes with commentary on implications going forward. For detailed commentary on Re IAA, see here, here, here, here, here, and here. Overall, this package of proposed amendments represents a constitutionally cautious approach to correcting constitutional problems, including one excessive over-correction where caution is tantamount to abdication (interprovincial effects of greenhouse gas emissions).

Continue reading

Posted in Constitutional, Environmental | Comments Off on Constitutional Caution, Correction, and Abdication: The Proposed Amendments to the Impact Assessment Act

An Electronic Change is Gonna Come: Recommendations for the Alteration and Revocation of Electronic Wills

By: Katherine MacKenzie, Legal Counsel, Alberta Law Reform Institute

Report Commented On: Alberta Law Reform Institute, Alteration and Revocation of Electronic Wills, Final Report 120

PDF Version: An Electronic Change is Gonna Come: Recommendations for the Alteration and Revocation of Electronic Wills

At the end of 2023, my colleague, Matthew Mazurek, wrote a post about the use of an emoji as a valid, electronic signature and explored how that might play out in the context of electronic wills. The post coincided with the publication of the Alberta Law Reform Institute’s (ALRI) final report about the creation of electronic wills. In that report, ALRI proposed that electronic wills should be permitted in Alberta and provided recommendations for how electronic wills should be created. Specifically, we recommended that electronic wills should follow the formalities required for the creation of formal paper wills, meaning they should be:

  • readable as text,
  • signed by the testator with an electronic signature, and,
  • signed by two witnesses, who both use an electronic signature.

Continue reading

Posted in Law Reform, Wills and Estates | Comments Off on An Electronic Change is Gonna Come: Recommendations for the Alteration and Revocation of Electronic Wills

Alberta’s Water Sharing “Agreements”

By: Nigel Bankes

Matter commented on: Water Sharing Agreements for the South Saskatchewan Basin, April 2024

PDF Version: Alberta’s Water Sharing “Agreements”

Last month (April 19, 2024), Minister Schulz announced that what she referred to as the “largest water sharing agreements in Alberta’s 118-year history are now in place to help respond to the risk of severe drought.” The press release referred to a package of four such water sharing “agreements” (WSAs). Each of these four agreements are in fact titled as a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). The four MoUs are as follows: (1) an MoU in relation to the Red Deer River Basin, (2) an MoU in relation to the Bow River Basin, (3) an MoU in relation to the Oldman South Saskatchewan Basin, and (4) an MoU in relation to the Southern Tributaries (that is to say, the southern tributaries of the Oldman River, namely the Waterton, Belly, and St. Mary Rivers. All of the MoUs bear the header date of April 2, 2024, suggesting that they were all finalized as of that date. Continue reading

Posted in Water Law | Comments Off on Alberta’s Water Sharing “Agreements”

Bill 18 Provincial Priorities Act: Alberta Strikes Again

By: Shaun Fluker

Matter commented on: Bill 18, Provincial Priorities Act, 1st Sess, 31st Leg, Alberta, 2024 (first reading 10 April 2024)

PDF Version: Bill 18 Provincial Priorities Act: Alberta Strikes Again

On April 10, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith introduced Bill 18 for first reading in the current session of the Legislature, and second reading began on April 17. If Bill 18 passes through the legislative process in its current form, it will be enacted as the Provincial Priorities Act and require designated entities to obtain prior approval before entering into, amending, extending, or renewing an agreement with the federal government. The purpose and consequences of Bill 18 have been questioned by those who will be directly affected, including municipalities and post-secondary institutions. The Premier has also spoken to the media about the Bill – see e.g. here. The commentary thus far makes one thing very clear: Bill 18 is a sequel to the Alberta Sovereignty within a United Canada Act, SA 2022, c A-33.8 (Sovereignty Act) in its attempt to implement the Free Alberta Strategy and block what are seen as federal intrusions into provincial jurisdiction. Less clear is whether there are also some ideological motivations for the Bill. This post examines the content of Bill 18 and, to further understand the purpose of this proposed statute, reflects on the opening statements made by the Premier during first and second reading in the Legislature. Continue reading

Posted in Constitutional | Comments Off on Bill 18 Provincial Priorities Act: Alberta Strikes Again