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


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
3 days ago7 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


Allegiance, Compulsion, and the Charter: Why Wirring v Law Society of Alberta Matters
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

Daniel Lincoln
Mar 168 min read


A Provincial Role in Judicial Appointments: Turning a Reasonable Request into a Poison Pill?
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

Ian Peach
Feb 247 min read


Understanding Quebec v Senneville, Part III: Interview with Emmett Macfarlane
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

Kira Davidson
Feb 196 min read
Search


Q&A with Professor Rebeca Macias Gimenez: The Site C Dam, Section 35, and Protecting Indigenous Ways of Life
In this expert Q&A, 2025 CCS Summer Student Nicole Ibalio talks to Professor Rebeca Macias Gimenez (University of Alberta) about her research on the Site C hydropower dam project (Peace River), the impacts it's having on First Nations in BC, and the role that treaty rights can play in challenging these impacts. Q. Could you give an overview of the Site C hydropower dam project, including relevant parties and effects on the land? A. There are a number of First Nations that ar

Nicole Ibalio
Nov 12, 202515 min read


Part 1: Unpacking Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation
by Saloni Sharma, J.D. Candidate 2026 . April 9, 2025 Screenshot of the Supreme Court of Canada's hearing of Dickson v VGFN , showing the panel of seven Justices in attendance. Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation [1] was the second Supreme Court of Canada judgment released in 2024 concerning the self-governing powers of Indigenous governments. Two critical holdings emerge from this landmark case: 1) the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [2] applies to self-governi
Saloni Sharma
Apr 11, 202510 min read


Q&A with Ryan Beaton: Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchen First Nation -- Section 25 and the Mushy Test
conducted in the summer of 2024 by Saloni Sharma. March 12, 2025 Ryan Beaton, Juristes Power Law. Previously law clerk to the Right Honourable Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin of the Supreme Court of Canada, Ryan’s practice and his academic research are focused on Aboriginal rights and title, language rights, and constitutional law generally. In this Q&A, CCS Summer Student Saloni Sharma talks to Dr. Ryan Beaton — a lawyer with Power Law in Vancouver — about the Supreme Court
ccsedu
Mar 20, 202511 min read
bottom of page