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


Taking Stock of Alberta’s Human Rights Landscape in Light of Recent Uses of the Notwithstanding Clause
On December 9, 2025, the Alberta Legislative Assembly successfully passed Bill 9 on third reading, [1] invoking the notwithstanding clause in an effort to thwart Charter challenges against three statutes that affect the rights of transgender individuals in the province: the Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2024 (No. 2) [2] (previously Bill 26), which prohibits access to gender-affirming medical treatments for gender diverse youth under 16; the Education Amendment Act, 2024 [

Kira Davidson
Feb 914 min read


Understanding Quebec v Senneville, Part I: Interview with Lisa Kerr
This is the first in a series of three expert interviews on the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent judgment in Quebec v Senneville — a judgment that elicited a great deal of public attention and controversy when it was released in October 2025. In Senneville , the Supreme Court struck down two mandatory minimum sentencing provisions relating to possession and accessing of child pornography, ruling that these sentences violated section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and

Kira Davidson
Feb 47 min read


Truth about Allegiance
It is, or at least was, fairly common practice in Canada to require people to take an oath to “be faithful and bear true allegiance to” the Sovereign, his heirs and successors. The single largest group of people who must swear the oath of allegiance are naturalized citizens, of whom I am one. Another fairly numerous group that used to be, and in some provinces still is, required to swear this oath consists of lawyers. It has also been a somewhat common practice for people to

Leonid Sirota
Jan 1511 min read


The Constitutional Crisis within the Climate Crisis
“[C]limate change is an existential challenge. It is a threat of the highest order to the country, and indeed to the world. ... The undisputed existence of a threat to the future of humanity cannot be ignored.” - References re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (2021) [1] In the References re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (“ GGPPA Reference ”), the Supreme Court of Canada used unequivocal language to characterize the “global climate crisis.” [2] Their message was

Areeba Ismail
Jan 710 min read


John Howard Society of Saskatchewan v Saskatchewan on Sanctions, Segregation, and Section 11(d)
There are some fundamental legal principles that Canadian society rigorously protects. One such principle is the presumption that people are innocent until proven guilty, which is expressly protected by section 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms . Section 11(d) states that “any person charged with an offence has the right: to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law.” [1] This section exclusively applies to those who have been criminally charge

Anjali Choudhary
Dec 2, 20257 min read


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


“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
bottom of page