SEVEN/FIFTY
The Centre for Constitutional Studies Blog

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

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

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

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

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”),

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

On December 16, 2025, the Alberta Court of Appeal did something no Canadian appellate court has done before: it struck down a statutory oath of allegiance requirement for admission to the bar as unconstitutional. In Wirring v Law Society of Alberta , the Court held that Alberta’s requirement that aspiring lawyers swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown infringes freedom of religion under section 2(a) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“ Charter ”) and cannot be justif

Late last month Alberta Premier Danielle Smith sent Prime Minister Mark Carney a letter, made public in the first week of February, seeking a role for the Alberta government in the selection of federally-appointed judges. [1] This is a reasonable request. Indeed, my understanding is that it has generally been common practice for the federal Justice Minister to seek the opinion of their provincial counterpart from the province for which they would be appointing a judge (as we

This is the third 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

Quebec’s Act respecting the laicity of the State (“Bill 21”) prohibits certain public sector employees from wearing religious symbols while performing their duties, [1] prohibits certain public sector employees from delivering public services while wearing facial coverings, and prevents individuals accessing certain public services from doing so with their faces covered. [2] The impact of these prohibitions, which clearly limit the religious freedom that is guaranteed by s