SEVEN/FIFTY
The Centre for Constitutional Studies Blog

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

This is the second 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

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 [

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

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

“[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

In the weeks before and after it was passed, the Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act generated a wealth of controversy and debate. While the legislation that we got wasn’t as bold as the version originally proposed in the Free Alberta Strategy , it nonetheless struck many observers as an affront to basic constitutional ideals. Indeed, so glaring was this perceived affront that Emmett Macfarlane described the legislation as “ anti-constitutional ” and as “ the most

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

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