SEVEN/FIFTY
The Centre for Constitutional Studies Blog

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

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

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