DOCSLIB.ORG

Untangling the Web of Canadian Privacy Laws

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Untangling the Web of Canadian Privacy Laws Reproduced by permission of Thomson Reuters Canada Limited from Annual Review of Civil Litigation 2020, ed. The Honourable Mr. Justice Todd L. Archibald. Shining a Light on Privacy: Untangling the Web of Canadian Privacy Laws BONNIE FISH AND ALEXANDER EVANGELISTA1 It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. George Orwell, 1984 I. THE GENESIS OF PRIVACY LITIGATION Although there are more Canadian privacy laws than ever before and the right to privacy has quasi-constitutional status,2 Canadian citizens have never had greater cause for concern about their privacy. Our devices make public a dizzying amount of our personal information.3 We share information about our preferences and location with retailers and data brokers when shopping for online products and when shopping in physical stores using our credit cards, payment cards or apps. Smart homes and smart cities make possible Orwellian surveillance and data capture that previously would have been illegal without a judicial warrant.4 The illusion of anonymous or secure internet activity has been shattered5 by large scale privacy breaches that have exposed the vulnerability of our personal information to hackers.6 The COVID-19 crisis raises new privacy concerns as governments and private institutions exert extraordinary powers to control the outbreak, including the use of surveillance technologies.7 1 Bonnie Fish is a Partner and the Director of Legal Research at Fogler, Rubinoff LLP, Alexander Evangelista is an associate in the litigation department of Fogler, Rubinoff LLP. The authors thank Emily Duncan, articling student, Fogler, Rubinoff LLP, for her research assistance with this paper. 2 Lavigne v. Canada (Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages), 2002 SCC 53, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 773 (S.C.C.) at para. 22. 3 Cameron F. Kerry, “Why Protecting Privacy is a Losing Game Today and How to Change the Game” (2018) <https://www.brookings.edu/research/why-protecting-privacy-is-a- losing-game-today-and-how-to-change-the-game/>. 4 Ellen P. Goodman & Julia Powles, “Urbanism under Google: Lessons from Sidewalk Toronto” (2019) 88 Fordham L.R. 457 at 477-478. 5 Paul M. Schwartz & Danile J. Solove, “ The PII Problem: Privacy and a New Concept of Personally Identifiable Information” (2011) 86 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 1814 at 1836-37. 6 In 2018 Cambridge Analytica harvested the personal data of millions of people’s Facebook profiles without their consent and used it for political advertising purposes. Confessore, “Cambridge Analytica and Facebook: The Scandal and Fallout So Far” (2018) online: NY Times.com. 7 Framework for the Government of Canada to Assess Privacy Impactful Intiatives in response to Covid-19, priv.gc.ca; Arjun Karpal, “Use of Surveillance to fight Annual Review of Civil Litigation / 544 As concern for privacy has grown, the web of privacy laws has become increasingly complex and tangled. The Supreme Court has declared that privacy protection is necessary to preserve a free and democratic society and so ruled that privacy breaches engage Charter rights and privacy laws have a quasi- constitutional status. The Federal and provincial legislatures have addressed privacy concerns with a raft of legislation that governs the collection, use, and disclosure of personal data. Our courts have recognized a number of torts that offer remedies for breaches of personal privacy. This paper is intended to offer guidance in navigating the expanding landscape of Canadian privacy laws. The fundamental argument advanced is that the starting point for analyzing any privacy problem is the quasi- constitutional status of privacy laws. The paper begins by exploring that quasi- constitutional status and how privacy breaches engage the Charter. With this analytical framework in place, the paper then provides an overview of the statutory privacy schemes and common law privacy torts. The final section explains how the available statutory, Charter, and common law remedies fit together. II. WHY IS PRIVACY LITIGATION SO COMPLICATED? Privacy litigation is complicated because privacy is a broad concept with personal and public dimensions that can engage Charter, statutory and common law protection. The protection of privacy is partially addressed by privacy statutes and partially by the common law. As the Supreme Court has confirmed, privacy laws are quasi-constitutional and some breaches of privacy engage Charter rights. The statutory regimes address personal privacy as it relates to the collection, use and disclosure of personal data by governments and private sector organizations.8 However, data protection laws do not cover the entire privacy field. While there is a direct connection between data collection and personal privacy,9 protection of personal data is distinct from the right to privacy in life. Privacy extends to activities, decisions, thoughts, bodies and communications.10 One commentator explains how the concepts interact: Coronovirus raises concerns about government power after pandemic endsº CNBC, (March 26, 2020) <https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/27/coronavirus-surveillance-used- by-governments-to-fight-pandemic-privacy-concerns.html> . See also ``How Volun- teers From Tech Companies Built a Coronavirus-Tracking Site in Six Daysº, Christina Farr, CNBC, March 24, 2020 <https://www.necn.com/news/national-international/ volunteers-from-tech-companies-built-coronavirus-tracking-site/2250388/>. 8 Charnetski, The Personal Information and Electronic Documents Act, A Comprehensive Guide (Aurora: Canada Law Book, 2001) at 203. 9 Steven Hetcher, ªChanging the Social Meaning of Privacy in Cyberspaceº (2001) 15 Harv. L.J. & Tech. 149 at footnote 29. 545 / Untangling the Web of Canadian Privacy Laws While ªprivacyº includes various aspects of ªdata protectionº, these are not one and the same. The ultimate purpose of [data protection laws] was to protect individuals from data-handling activities that were potentially harmful to them. This notion of ªrisk of harmº behind [data protection laws] . is actually broader than the notion of ªprivacyº and ªprivacyº is broader than data protection, although the two notions clearly overlap.11 Common law torts provide remedies for breaches of privacy outside of data protection. This divide between statutory and common law remedies is complicated by the fact that some provincial privacy statutes create a statutory cause of action for breach of privacy. The relationship between the statutory scheme and the common law is explored more fully below in the section which addresses the intersection between tort and statute. The quasi-constitutional status of privacy laws provides context to the field of privacy and how the laws should be interpreted. We begin with an analysis of the Supreme Court's approach to privacy. III. PERSONAL PRIVACY AS A CHARTER RIGHT Long before personal privacy was threatened by the Internet and social media, the Supreme Court recognized that protection from inappropriate intrusions by the state upon personal privacy was the underlying purpose of the right against unreasonable search and seizure in section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.12 This purposive approach to interpreting section 8 was adopted by the Court in 1982 in Hunter et al. v. Southam Inc.: Like the Supreme Court of the United States, I would be wary of foreclosing the possibility that the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure might protect interests beyond the right of privacy, but for purposes of the present appeal I am satisfied that its protections go at least that far. The guarantee of security from unreasonable search and seizure only protects a reasonable expectation. This limitation on the right guaranteed by s. 8, whether it is expressed negatively as freedom from ``unreasonableº search and seizure, or positively as an entitlement to a ``reasonableº expectation of privacy, indicates that an assessment must be made as to whether in a particular situation the public's interest in being left alone by government must give way to the government's interest in intruding on the individual's privacy in order to advance its goals, notably those of law enforcement.13 [emphasis in original] 10 Helen F. Nissenbaum, ªPrivacy as Contextual Integrityº (2004) 79:1 Wash. L. Rev. 119 at 123-24. 11 Charnetski, supra note 8 at 204. 12 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.). 13 [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145 (S.C.C.) at 160. See also the dissenting judgment of Justice La Forest in Dagg v. Canada (Minister of Finance), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 403 (S.C.C.) at paras. 65-66 where he wrote: Annual Review of Civil Litigation / 546 In 1993 R. v. Osolin, Justice L'Heureux-Dube J., dissenting but not on this point, also wrote that privacy was the fundamental value protected by section 8: The importance of privacy as a fundamental value in our society is underscored by the protection afforded to everyone under s. 8 of the Charter ``to be secure against unreasonable search or seizureº. This value finds expression in such legislation as the Privacy Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-21, which restricts the purposes for which information may be used to those for which it was received.14 [emphasis in original] More recently in R. v. Spencer15 the Supreme Court considered whether the constitutional protection afforded to privacy applied to child pornography stored by an accused on a computer. The police identified the Internet Protocol (IP) address of a computer the accused used to access and store child pornography through an Internet file-sharing program. They then obtained from the Internet Service Provider (ISP), and without prior judicial authorization, the subscriber information associated with that IP address. The request was made pursuant to section 7(3)(c.1)(ii) of PIPEDA and ultimately led the police to the accused who was convicted by the trial judge.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Interpretation of Tax Legislation: the Evolution of Purposive Analysis
    Interpretation of Tax Legislation: The Evolution of Purposive Analysis Stephen W. Bowman* PRÉCIS Durant le XIXe siècle et la première moitié du XXe siècle, l’interprétation de la législation fiscale a été dominée par l’application de règles rigoureuses de l’interprétation réglementaire. Les tribunaux, sauf dans des dérogations occasionnelles et des exceptions limitées, ont interprété rigoureusement et littéralement la législation fiscale, d’après les mots utilisés dans la législation, sans formuler aucune hypothèse sur l’objet et l’esprit de la législation autre que la levée d’impôts. Les règles de la preuve empêchaient les tribunaux de se reporter aux débats parlementaires ou à d’autres moyens extrinsèques pour les aider à établir le but ou le sens des dispositions législatives. Si la formulation d’une provision fiscale était jugée ambiguë, l’équivoque était résolue en faveur du contribuable; si une exemption était jugée ambiguë, l’équivoque était résolue en faveur du fisc. Au moins à compter des années 1930, l’interprétation rigoureuse et littérale a commencé à soulever des critiques sur le plan théorique et judiciaire, critiques qui étaient largement répandues dans le monde de la common law. Durant la première moitié des années 1980, l’approche traditionnelle a été rejetée en faveur de directives plus téléologiques au Canada, au Royaume-Uni et en Australie. Le jugement rendu par la Cour suprême dans l’affaire Stubart Investments Limited v. The Queen s’est avéré une décision critique dans ce domaine. Selon les directives adoptées par la Cour suprême dans l’affaire Stubart, l’interprétation de la législation fiscale devait être faite selon les mêmes principes généraux applicables à la loi en général, et la législation devait être lue dans son contexte complet et dans son sens grammatical et ordinaire, en harmonie avec le plan de la législation entière, l’objet de la législation et l’intention de la législature.
    [Show full text]
  • Redefining What's “Reasonable”: the Protections for Policing
    \\jciprod01\productn\G\GWN\84-2\GWN201.txt unknown Seq: 1 18-MAR-16 13:42 Redefining What’s “Reasonable”: The Protections for Policing Barry Friedman and Cynthia Benin Stein* ABSTRACT How should the Constitution govern police surveillance and investiga- tions? Once, the formal rules were clear, even if not faithfully observed: searches and seizures required probable cause and a warrant. Today, how- ever, the Supreme Court has said that many forms of police activity need only be “reasonable.” But what is required to ensure that policing is “reasonable”? This question has become all the more pressing and perplexing as policing has shifted from a reactive, investigative approach that centers on suspicion that a particular person has committed a particular crime to a more programmatic, deterrent approach that relies on searching and seizing people without any suspicion of wrongdoing. In numerous contexts today—among them the use of drones, stop and frisk, bulk data collection, DNA testing, and a myriad of other controversial activities—the government justifies warrantless and often suspicionless surveillance by applying a mushy reasonableness balancing test. Courts, commentators, politicians and police all are at a loss to know precisely what is, or should be, required. This Article argues that matters can be simplified greatly by focusing not on the policing technique at issue, but on the protections that ensure against the use of arbitrary police discretion. Whatever else the Fourth Amendment safeguards, there is widespread agreement that it is a protection against arbi- trary and unjustified government intrusion. Policing has a binary nature to it. Policing agencies engage in two types of searches: (1) They investigate, based on individualized suspicion (“cause”) to believe a person has committed a crime; and (2) they engage in suspicionless searches that seek, in a program- matic or deterrent way, to curb a social problem and prevent criminal con- duct.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Trends in Canadian Federalism. Centripetal and Centrifugal Forces in Canadian Division of Powers ERIKA ARBAN1 Summary
    Current trends in Canadian federalism. Centripetal and centrifugal forces in Canadian division of powers ERIKA ARBAN1 Summary: 1.Introduction; 2. Canadian Federalism and the division of legislative powers; 3. Judicial interpretation of the division of powers; 4. Level of (de)centralization of Canadian federalism; 5. Future changes in the division of powers; 6. Conclusions. 1. Introduction Canadian federalism is often described as the most decentralized in the world. This paper tries to identify elements of Canadian federalism which support and which go against this statement, to ultimately determine whether Canadian federalism is presently on a decentralizing (centrifugal) or centralizing (centripetal) course. As pointed out by Ronald Watts, in determining the level of (de)centralization of a given federal scheme, the first task becomes that of clarifying which powers we want to analyze. 1 L.L.M., University of Arizona; Ph.D. Candidate, University of Ottawa. 1 Centralization or decentralization can refer both to the legislative powers assigned to each level of government (federal or provincial in Canada), or to the role played by the various components in federal decision making.2 Also, we can analyze the level of (de)centralization by looking at the administrative bodies in a federal state and how federal institutions are more or less present locally. In this paper, however, I will focus only on the level of (de)centralization in the distribution of legislatives powers between federal Parliament and provincial legislatures in Canada as stemming from the Canadian Constitution and as shaped by the decisions of the Privy Council (hereinafter, “P.C.”) and the Supreme Court of Canada (hereinafter, “SCC”).
    [Show full text]
  • Interpreting the Charter of Rights: Generosity and Justification
    Osgoode Hall Law Journal Volume 28 Issue 4 Volume 28, Number 4 (Winter 1990) Article 3 10-1-1990 Interpreting the Charter of Rights: Generosity and Justification Peter W. Hogg Osgoode Hall Law School of York University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Article This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Citation Information Hogg, Peter W.. "Interpreting the Charter of Rights: Generosity and Justification." Osgoode Hall Law Journal 28.4 (1990) : 817-838. https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol28/iss4/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Osgoode Hall Law Journal by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. Interpreting the Charter of Rights: Generosity and Justification Abstract The author argues that there is a close relationship between the scope of the rights guaranteed by the Charter and the standard of justification equirr ed under section 1. The broader the scope of a right, the more relaxed the standard of justification must be. A generous interpretation of a right is incompatible with the stringent Oakes standard of justification. However, a purposive interpretation of a right, confining the right to conduct that is worthy of constitutional protection, is compatible with a stringent standard of justification. Keywords Canada. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; Constitutional law--Interpretation and construction; Canada Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.
    [Show full text]
  • 225 Watertight Compartments: Getting Back to the Constitutional Division of Powers I. Introduction
    GETTING BACK TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DIVISION OF POWERS 225 WATERTIGHT COMPARTMENTS: GETTING BACK TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DIVISION OF POWERS ASHER HONICKMAN* This article offers a fresh examination of the constitutional division of powers. The author argues that sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 establish exclusive jurisdictional spheres — what the Privy Council once termed “watertight compartments.” This mutual exclusivity is emphasized and reinforced throughout these sections and leaves very little room for legitimate overlap. While some degree of overlap is permissible under this scheme — particularly incidental effects, genuine double aspects, and limited ancillary powers — overlap must be constrained in a principled fashion to comply with the exclusivity principle. The modern trend toward flexibility and freer overlap is contrary to the constitutional text. The author argues that while some deviation from the text is inevitable due to the presumption of constitutionality and stare decisis, the Supreme Court should return to a more exclusivist footing in accordance with the text. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................. 226 II. THE EXCLUSIVITY PRINCIPLE .................................. 227 A. FROM QUEBEC TO THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT ................. 227 B. THE NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE AND THE DEEMING PROVISION ...... 231 C. CONCURRENT POWERS ................................... 234 III. PITH AND SUBSTANCE AND LEGITIMATE OVERLAP ................. 235 A. INTERJURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITY .........................
    [Show full text]
  • Insights from Canada for American Constitutional Federalism Stephen F
    Penn State Law eLibrary Journal Articles Faculty Works 2014 Insights from Canada for American Constitutional Federalism Stephen F. Ross Penn State Law Follow this and additional works at: http://elibrary.law.psu.edu/fac_works Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Stephen F. Ross, Insights from Canada for American Constitutional Federalism, 16 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 891 (2014). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Works at Penn State Law eLibrary. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Penn State Law eLibrary. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES INSIGHTS FROM CANADA FOR AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERALISM Stephen F Ross* INTRODUCTION National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius' has again fo- cused widespread public attention on the role of the United States Supreme Court as an active arbiter of the balance of power between the federal government and the states. This has been an important and controversial topic throughout American as well as Canadian constitutional history, raising related questions of constitutional the- ory for a federalist republic: Whatjustifies unelected judges interfer- ing with the ordinary political process with regard to federalism ques- tions? Can courts create judicially manageable doctrines to police federalism, with anything more than the raw policy preferences of five justices as to whether a particular legislative issue is
    [Show full text]
  • The Trend Towards Purposive Statutory Interpretation: Human Rights at Stake
    THE TREND TOWARDS PURPOSIVE STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: HUMAN RIGHTS AT STAKE By Tobias Lonnquist* A clear trend has been identified in relation to the interpretation of statutes from a strict or literal approach towards a more purposive approach. This has even been the case for revenue law which for some time has been considered as a penal statute. This trend is evident in other tax jurisdictions, both civilian and common law. After comparing and contrasting the various arguments for and against the purposive approach, it has been concluded that this observed change should not be welcomed in relation to the taxation legislation. Such an approach poses a serious threat to the separation of powers’, as the judicial arm would be able to read words into the legislation as they see fit. Even worse, however, is the threat to human rights, that is, the ability of the taxpayers to protect what is rightfully their own. Introduction The approach to statutory interpretation has undergone immense change over the past couple of decades, particularly in relation to the interpretation of revenue statutes.1 The change is said to be from a strict or literal approach (which has tended to favour the taxpayer), towards a more purposive approach (which tends to favour revenue). This shift has been viewed as quite bold, given that revenue statutes have for a long time been considered penal statutes and interpreted accordingly, that is, strictly and in favour of the taxpayer. As with any criticism there are also praises, for example from Kirby J, in FC of T v Ryan:2 * BCom, BIT, MAcc (Bond).
    [Show full text]
  • Foetal Rights and the Regulation of Abortion Martha Shaffer*
    Foetal Rights and the Regulation of Abortion Martha Shaffer* In.this article, the author discusses the legal L'auteure dtudie le statut juridique du foetus status of the foetus in the wake of the Supreme A la lumi~re de l'affaire Tremblay c. Daigle. Court of Canada decision in Tremblay v. Dai- Elle analyse d'abord un des aspects de la ddci- gle. She examines the Court's finding that the sion de ]a Cour supreme du Canada selon foetus has no rights in the civil or common law lequel le fetus n'a aucun droit autant en droit and exposes the resulting difficulties with the civil qu'en common law. Elle fait ensuite res- assertion of foetal rights under the Charter.By sortir les difficult~s que pr6sente le fait de sou- drawing upon factums submitted by the parties tenir que ]a Charte confire des droits au foetus. and by anti-abortion intervenors in Daigle and En faisant appel aux m~moires que les parties Borowski v. Canada (A.G.), the author ana- et les intervenants opposds i l'avortement ont lyzes the scientific and moral claims pro- soumis lors des affaires Daigle et Borowski c. pounded by opponents of abortion in support Canada (P.G.), 'auteure dfmontre que leurs of foetal rights but finds them insufficient to arguments moraux et scientifiques ne suffisent establish a normative argument for the recog- pas i 6tablir une norme selon laquelle on pour- nition of such rights under the Charter. rait baser la reconnaissance des droits en The determination of foetal rights under the faveur du fetus en vertu de ]a Charte.
    [Show full text]
  • Which Textualism?
    COMMENTS WHICH TEXTUALISM? Tara Leigh Grove ∗ INTRODUCTION The academic indictment of textualism was almost in. Although textualism has in recent decades gained considerable prominence within the federal judiciary,1 legal scholars remain skeptical: critics argue that textualism is insensitive to the actual workings of Congress,2 overly rigid,3 or (conversely) overly malleable4 and thus not much different from its main competitor purposivism.5 Moreover, some critics charge that textualism is not a neutral method of interpretation at all. Instead, ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ∗ Charles E. Tweedy, Jr., Endowed Chairholder of Law & Director, Program in Constitutional Studies, University of Alabama School of Law. Many thanks, for helpful comments on earlier drafts, to Josh Blackman, Sam Bray, Aaron Bruhl, Jessica Clarke, Neal Devins, Heather Elliott, Katie Eyer, Richard Fallon, David Fontana, Cary Franklin, Laura Heymann, Bert Huang, Orin Kerr, Andy Koppelman, Anita Krishnakumar, Alli Larsen, Gary Lawson, Henry Monaghan, Victoria Nourse, Jim Pfander, Susan Provenzano, William Pryor, Richard Re, Naomi Schoenbaum, Larry Solum, Kevin Stack, and Chris Walker. 1 Justice Kagan commented several years ago that “w[e are] all textualists now.” Harvard Law School, The 2015 Scalia Lecture | A Dialogue with Justice Elena Kagan on the Reading of Statutes, YOUTUBE at 08:28 (Nov. 25, 2015), https://youtu.be/dpEtszFT0Tg [https://perma.cc/6HMD- 727M]. Although that may be an exaggeration, Justice Kagan’s comment captures how the rise of modern textualism has impacted the way that judges approach cases. See Thomas R. Lee & Stephen C. Mouritsen, Judging Ordinary Meaning, 127 YALE L.J. 788, 793 (2018) (underscoring the influence of textualism in the courts); Gillian E.
    [Show full text]
  • Fie No. 33718 in the SUPREME COURT of CANADA in THE
    Fie No. 33718 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA IN THE MATTER OF Section 53 of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26; AND IN THE MATTER OF a Reference by the Governor in Council concerning the proposed Canadian Securities Act, as set out in Order in Council P.C. 2010, dated May 26,2010 FACTUM OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN, INTERVENER Fied pursuant to Rule 42 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada ATTORNEYGENERAL COWLING, LAFLEUR, FOR SASKATCHEWAN HENDERSON LLP Constitutional Law Branch 2600 - 160 Elgin Street 820 - 1874 Scarth Street OTTAWA ON KIP 1C3 REGINA SK S4P 4B3 Henry S. Brown, Q.C. Graeme G. Mitchell, Q.C. Tel: (613) 786-0139 Tel: (306) 787-8385 Fax: (613) 563-9869 Fax: (306) 787-9111 Email: henrv.brown@~owlioPs.com Email: Graeme.MitcheU@,eov.sk.ca Ottawa Agent for the Intervener Counsel for the Intewener Attorney General for Saskatchewan Attorney General for Saskatchewan Robert J. Frater Attorney General of Canada Bank of Canada Building 234 Wellington Street, Room 1161 OTTAWA ON KIA OH8 Tel: (613) 957-4763 Fax: (613) 954-1 920 Email: robert.frater@,iustice.pc.ca Counsel for the Attorney General of Canada Jean-Yves Bernard Pierre Landry France Bonsaint Noel & Associb Hugo Jean 11 1, rue Charnplian Bernard, Roy Associb (Justice-Quebec) GATINEAU QC J8X 3R1 8.00 - 1, rue Notre-Dame Est MONTREAL QC H2Y 1B6 Tel: (819) 771-7393 Fax: (8 19) 77 1-5397 Tel: (514) 393-2336 Ext: 51467 Email: p.landry@,noelassocies.com Fax: (514) 873-7074 Email: jvbernard@,iustice.~ouv.qc.ca Correspondant du procureur gh6al du france.bonsaint@,iustice.gouv.qc.ca Quebec hugo.iean@,iustice.gouv.qc.ca Procureur du procureur general du Quebec L.
    [Show full text]
  • HER MAJESTY the QUEEN in RIGHT of ALBERTA As
    Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of..., 1992 CarswellNat 1313 1992 CarswellNat 1313, 1992 CarswellNat 649, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 3, [1992] 2 W.W.R. 193... 1992 CarswellNat 1313 Supreme Court of Canada Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport) 1992 CarswellNat 1313, 1992 CarswellNat 649, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 3, [1992] 2 W.W.R. 193, [1992] S.C.J. No. 1, 132 N.R. 321, 31 A.C.W.S. (3d) 250, 3 Admin. L.R. (2d) 1, 48 F.T.R. 160, 7 C.E.L.R. (N.S.) 1, 84 Alta. L.R. (2d) 129, 88 D.L.R. (4th) 1, J.E. 92-180, EYB 1992-67211 HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ALBERTA as represented by the MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS, SUPPLY AND SERVICES, MINISTER OF TRANSPORT and MINISTER OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS v. FRIENDS OF THE OLDMAN RIVER SOCIETY; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR NEW BRUNSWICK, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MANITOBA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEWFOUNDLAND, MINISTER OF JUSTICE OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, NATIONAL INDIAN BROTHERHOOD/ASSEMBLY OF FIRST NATIONS, DENE NATION AND METIS ASSOCIATION OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, NATIVE COUNCIL OF CANADA (ALBERTA), SIERRA LEGAL DEFENCE FUND, CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ASSOCIATION, SIERRA CLUB OF WESTERN CANADA, CULTURAL SURVIVAL (CANADA), FRIENDS OF THE EARTH and ALBERTA WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION (Intervenors) Lamer C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Stevenson, Iacobucci JJ. Heard: February 19 and 20, 1991 Judgment: January 23, 1992 Docket: Doc.
    [Show full text]
  • Petition for Mandamus
    USCA4 Appeal: 18-2486 Doc: 2-2 Filed: 12/17/2018 Pg: 1 of 189 ADDENDUM USCA4 Appeal: 18-2486 Doc: 2-2 Filed: 12/17/2018 Pg: 2 of 189 TABLE OF CONTENTS Record Materials: District Court Opinion, Dkt. No. 101 (March 28, 2018) .......................................... Add. 1 District Court Order, Dkt. No. 102 (March 28, 2018) ............................................ Add. 48 District Court Opinion, Dkt No. 123 (July 25, 2018) .............................................. Add. 50 District Court Order, Dkt. No. 124 (July 25, 2018) ............................................... Add. 102 District Court Memorandum Opinion, Dkt. No. 135 (November 2, 2018) ...... Add. 104 District Court Order, Dkt. No. 136 (November 2, 2018) .................................... Add. 135 Amended Complaint, Dkt. No 95 (February 23, 2018) ........................................ Add. 136 Constitutional and Statutory Provisions: U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 8 ......................................................................................... Add. 185 U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 7 ........................................................................................ Add. 185 28 U.S.C. § 1292 .......................................................................................................... Add. 186 28 U.S.C. § 1651 .......................................................................................................... Add. 187 USCA4 Appeal: 18-2486 Doc: 2-2 Filed: 12/17/2018 Pg: 3 of 189 Case 8:17-cv-01596-PJM Document 101 Filed 03/28/18 Page
    [Show full text]