top of page

SEVEN/FIFTY
The Centre for Constitutional Studies Blog
A hub for current constitutional dialogue and commentary in Canada and beyond
Recent Posts


Why Care About Who's Paramount? Explaining the Doctrine of Federal Paramountcy, Part 1
This is Part 1 of a two-part article exploring the doctrine of federal paramountcy, which is on the ballot in Alberta’s October 2026 referendum. In this first part, I explain the constitutional context needed to understand the doctrine, and Alberta’s objection to it. Then, in Part 2, I advance the argument that federal paramountcy is an important and indeed required component of Canada’s federal system. Introduction On October 19, 2026, Alberta is scheduled to hold a province

Alexis Vander Linden
Oct 710 min read


Canada’s Electoral System Upheld as Constitutional in Fair Voting BC v Canada (Attorney General)
The Canadian electoral system survived a constitutional challenge at the Ontario Court of Appeal, with the Court unanimously holding that the Single Member Plurality electoral system (“SMP” or “first-past-the-post”) does not violate voting or equality rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.[1] This article provides a quick breakdown of the challenge and the Court’s reasoning in response to it. Background Since Confederation in 1867, Canada has used an SM

Anjali Choudhary
Oct 25 min read


You Can't Have it Both Ways: Why the Courts Must Recognize the Right of Self-Government as Included in Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982
Let us start at the beginning — what makes a right a right? Your rights are really only rights if they serve to protect activities that you want to engage in. If you want to say something controversial in public, the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression allows you to do that, as it is your right to. If you were a hermit, though, and never saw anyone else who you could say something to, the fact that freedom of expression is a constitutional right would be irrelev

Ian Peach
Sep 253 min read


Time for a National Referendum to Approve Steps to Strengthen the Canadian Federation
Unaccountable Executive Federalism is Weakening National Unity As Canada adapts to the disorderly post-free trade world and an adversarial relationship with the US, we need to take steps now to build a stronger federal structure to ensure Canada’s long-term sovereignty and security. We need constitutional or quasi-constitutional changes to the senate or similar structure, to better manage intergovernmental relations in our highly decentralized federation and strong provi

Deborah Coyne
Sep 177 min read


The Constitutional Implications of Canada’s Current MAiD Policy and Possible Avenues for Reform: An Interview with Dr. Kerri Froc
In this expert interview, Claire Adam, a 2026 Centre for Constitutional Studies Summer Student, speaks with Dr. Kerri Froc (University of New Brunswick), who unpacks the constitutional implications and social effects of the current MAiD scheme in Canada, as well as possible avenues for MAiD law reform. Q. There is a general public awareness that the old blanket prohibition on Medical Assistance in Dying (“MAiD”) was struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) in Carter
Claire Adam
Sep 917 min read


Evaluating Recent Changes to Canada's Bail Laws: An Interview with Dr. Nicole Myers
In this expert Q&A, 2026 CCS Summer Student Kiera Fischer talks to Professor Nicole Myers (Queen's University, Department of Sociology) about recent efforts at bail reform in Canada, including the recently enacted Bail and Sentencing Reform Act. Q. Bill C-14, the Bail and Sentencing Reform Act, has recently made some considerable changes to bail laws in Canada. Can you describe what key changes have been made? A. I would say that there are two components that we really want t

Kiera Fischer
Sep 211 min read


How Did We Get to a Referendum Question on Separation? Mapping the Legal Journey of the Citizen Initiative Petitions in Alberta
This article serves as Part I of an explainer on the legal developments surrounding the various Alberta separatism petitions that have dominated headlines in recent months. Part I covers the timeline of Mr. Sylvestre’s petitions, the Forever Canadian Petition, and the relevant amendments that have been made to the law governing citizen petitions in Alberta, the Citizen Initiative Act. Subsequently, Parts II and III will dissect Justice Leonard’s May 13, 2026, decision in Atha

Kiera Fischer
Aug 2713 min read


A Letter in the Law: Reconciling the Text and Purpose of Section 33
Introduction To date, the prevailing authority on the interpretation of section 33 is the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”)’s 1988 judgment in Ford v Quebec (Attorney General),[1] which determined that valid invocation of section 33 by a legislature establishes requirements of form only, with no further substantive limitations on how the clause can be used to override fundamental rights.[2] In anticipation of the SCC’s upcoming reconsideration of section 33 in the English Montr

Reid LeClair
Jul 288 min read


Proposed Referendum Question on Alberta Independence Found Unlawful in Chief Electoral Officer of Alberta v Sylvestre
It looks increasingly likely that Albertans will be voting on whether to separate from Canada this year. This vote would not only pose an existential challenge to the entire country, but has also been found to contravene certain constitutional rights by Justice Colin Feasby (Alberta Court of King’s Bench) in Chief Electoral Officer of Alberta v Sylvestre . [1] The effect of this ruling has been limited, however, by Alberta’s Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (“Bill 14”),

Anjali Choudhary
Apr 99 min read


“Matriating” the Constitution: A Historical Overview of Section 28 of the Charter in the Lead-Up to Bill 21’s Appeal Before the Supreme Court of Canada
Next week, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) will spend four days on a landmark hearing on the constitutionality of Quebec’s controversial Bill 21. [1] Enacted in 2019, Bill 21 — formally known as An Act respecting the laicity of the state [2] — seeks to enforce secularism in the province by targeting the wearing of religious symbols in the public sphere. The law requires certain civil servants — lawyers, police officers, and public school teachers among them — to remove r

Kira Davidson
Mar 1916 min read
Search


Part II: Charter Infringement Apparently Moot? The Quebec Court of Appeal’s Narrow Application of the Doctrine of Mootness in World Sikh Organization
The Second and Third Criteria: Judicial Economy and the Proper Adjudicative Role of the Courts The Quebec Court of Appeal’s discussion on the final two criteria for assessing mootness was relatively brief, which further highlights their narrow reading of Borowski . The criterion of judicial economy concerns whether resolving a moot issue would be a worthwhile use of judicial resources. [1] The practical effects on the rights of the parties, the likelihood that an issue w

Nicole Ibalio
Nov 26, 20256 min read


Part I: Charter Infringement Apparently Moot? The Quebec Court of Appeal’s Narrow Application of the Doctrine of Mootness in World Sikh Organization
Under Quebec’s Act respecting the laicity of the State (“Bill 21”), certain public sector employees are prohibited from wearing religious symbols while performing their duties. [1] Bill 21 further prohibits public sector employees and individuals accessing public services from wearing facial coverings and imposes sanctions such as disciplinary action or denial of service for failure to comply. [2] The Act has been challenged for violating religious freedom and gender equa

Nicole Ibalio
Nov 25, 20258 min read


Part II: “How Many MRIs Does the Constitution Require?” The Complicated Question of a Right to Health Care in Canada
Drawing the Line: The Constitutional Boundaries of Positive Rights As the jurisprudence discussed in Part I of this article suggests, the question of whether the Charter can be expanded to include a positive right to health care is deeply controversial and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future. This debate highlights a persistent tension between courts and legislatures, which courts have traditionally been reluctant to exacerbate through recognition and enforce

Areeba Ismail
Nov 21, 20255 min read


Part I: “How Many MRIs Does the Constitution Require?” The Complicated Question of a Right to Health Care in Canada
Is there a constitutional right to health care in Canada? Well… it’s complicated. On its face, the Supreme Court has been fairly clear: there’s no broad, guaranteed right to health care under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms . [1] This can seem surprising, especially since Canada’s universal health care system is widely regarded as a core part of the country’s identity. But the issue isn’t off the table entirely and at the heart of this debate is a key distinction: positiv

Areeba Ismail
Nov 20, 20258 min read


“Can They? Must They? Should They?” — Three Questions to Answer about the UCP's Use of the Notwithstanding Clause
When governments reach for the notwithstanding clause, three questions often get blurred together. Can they? Must they? Should they? These questions are related, but each demands a different kind of answer. “Can they” is a constitutional question about legal authority: does the Charter permit this move? “Must they” is a question about necessity: were there viable alternatives that could have addressed the problem without overriding rights? “Should they” is a normative questi

Jared Wesley
Oct 31, 20256 min read


"Mirror Show Me, What's the Difference?" — Constitutional Amendment and the Notwithstanding Clause
Back in 2019, I published a paper called The Notwithstanding Clause and the New Populism , in which I argued that the ongoing justifiability of the notwithstanding clause was contingent on aspects of Canada’s political culture that were at risk of erosion. On the way to this conclusion, I dismissed defences of the notwithstanding clause couched in terms of legislative supremacy, arguing, in part, that such defences create a tension between the notwithstanding clause and the a

Richard Mailey
Oct 17, 20259 min read


The Potential Power of Section 36 of the Constitution Act, 1982
On Thursday, October 2, the Centre for Constitutional Studies hosted a talk by Andrew Stobo Sniderman on the inadequacy of public services on First Nations reserves and the possibility that section 36 of the Constitution Act, 1982 could be used to challenge that inadequacy. [1] The background to Sniderman’s talk is that Canadian law has created a serious conundrum for First Nations individuals. Given the under-funding of on-reserve services, many decide that it is better

Ian Peach
Oct 17, 20255 min read


Miller II, Part II? The Legal Challenge to Trudeau’s Prorogation
by Vanessa MacDonnell. Originally published on Verfassungsblog on January 10, 2025, and later on Clause-by-Clause . Earlier this week, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau held a press conference to announce that he would resign as Prime Minister once a new Liberal leader was selected. He also revealed that he had advised the Governor General to prorogue Parliament and that she had granted the request, with Parliament set to return on March 24. The announcement ended months
ccsedu
Feb 5, 20258 min read


The Case For and Against Section 2(b) in Decampment Litigation (Part II)
November 21, 2024 The Case FOR Section 2(b) in Decampment Litigation This article investigates the possibility of using section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms , [1] which protects the freedom of expression, to challenge decampment policies: those which displace unhoused people sheltering in encampments. Part I explored section 2(b)’s limitations in this context, which may include inappropriately blaming unhoused people for systemic barriers, framing life-threat

Krystin Hoffart
Nov 21, 202412 min read


The Case For and Against Section 2(b) in Decampment Litigation (Part I)
November 14, 2024 The Case AGAINST Section 2(b) in Decampment Litigation Encampments have been a hot-button issue in 2024. Tents have been erected as part of pro-Palestinian demonstrations at over 15 Canadian university campuses, [1] and have in some cases been forcibly removed by authorities. [2] Municipalities have also cracked down on encampments constructed by unhoused persons, [3] and lawsuits regarding decampment policies — those which displace unhoused people shel

Krystin Hoffart
Nov 14, 20247 min read
bottom of page