Written by: Sara Santos-Vigneault Date: June 8, 2026 The Persons Case: When Women Became "Persons" Under Canadian Law Today, it is difficult to imagine a qualified Canadian being excluded from one of the country's highest public offices simply because of their sex. Yet less than one hundred years ago, women could not be appointed to the Senate of Canada. The legal barrier was not created by a law that explicitly excluded women. Instead, it arose from how a single word in Canada's Constitution had been interpreted for decades. That word was "Persons." [1] What followed became one of the most important constitutional cases in Canadian history. Known today as the Persons Case, the dispute helped open the Senate to women and established a constitutional principle that continues to influence Canadian courts nearly a century later. [3] The decision is often remembered as a milestone in the advancement of women's rights. Equally important, however, is the way the case changed how Canada's Constitution is interpreted. The legal reasoning developed in the Persons Case continues to appear in constitutional decisions today, making it one of the most influential cases ever decided in Canada. [3] Canada Before the Persons Case To understand why the case mattered, it helps to remember what Canada looked like in the early twentieth century. Women had already achieved significant legal and political gains. Several provinces had extended voting rights to women, and by 1918 many Canadian women could vote in federal elections. Women were increasingly involved in education, business, social reform movements, and public life. [5][6] Despite these advances, important barriers remained. One such barrier involved the Senate of Canada. Section 24 of the British North America Act, 1867, now known as the Constitution Act, 1867, provides that qualified "Persons" may be summoned to the Senate. [1] For decades, governments interpreted the word "Persons" as applying only to men. As a result, women could participate in many aspects of public life yet remained ineligible for appointment to Canada's upper chamber. [4][5] By the 1920s, many Canadians viewed that interpretation as increasingly outdated. The Famous Five The challenge to this interpretation was led by five Alberta women who became known as the Famous Five: • Emily Murphy • Henrietta Muir Edwards • Nellie McClung • Louise McKinney • Irene Parlby [4][5] Each woman had established herself as a prominent advocate for social and political reform. Emily Murphy, for example, had become Canada's first female police magistrate. During her work in the justice system, questions arose regarding whether women were legally eligible to hold certain public offices. [4][5] These questions helped spark a broader discussion about women's place within Canada's constitutional framework. In 1927, the Famous Five petitioned the federal government to refer a constitutional question to the Supreme Court of Canada. [4] The question was straightforward: "Does the word 'Persons' in section 24 of the British North America Act, 1867, include female persons?" [2] Although simple in wording, the answer would have significant consequences. The Supreme Court of Canada Says No In 1928, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the question. [2] The Court concluded that women were not included within the meaning of "Persons" for the purpose of Senate appointments. [2] The reasoning largely reflected historical assumptions existing at the time Confederation was created in 1867. The judges examined the legal and political environment of the nineteenth century and concluded that the framers of the Constitution likely did not intend women to serve in the Senate. [2] As a result, the Court answered the question in the negative. Today, the decision often surprises readers. Many assume that because women had already gained voting rights, eligibility for Senate appointments would naturally follow. The Supreme Court's ruling demonstrated that legal progress often occurs unevenly. Expanding rights in one area does not automatically remove barriers in another. The Famous Five refused to accept the decision and pursued a further appeal. [4][5] The Final Appeal to London At the time, Canada's highest court was not the Supreme Court of Canada. The final court of appeal for many Canadian matters was the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, England. [3] The Famous Five appealed the Supreme Court's decision to the Privy Council. The appeal would ultimately transform Canadian constitutional law. On October 18, 1929, the Privy Council overturned the Supreme Court's ruling. [3] The decision was written by Lord Sankey. Tne of the most frequently cited passages stated: "The exclusion of women from all public offices is a relic of days more barbarous than ours." [3] The statement reflected the Court's view that legal interpretation should not remain tied indefinitely to outdated social assumptions. The Privy Council concluded that women were indeed "Persons" within the meaning of section 24 and therefore eligible for appointment to the Senate. [3] The decision immediately removed the constitutional barrier that had prevented women from serving in Canada's upper chamber. The Birth of the Living Tree Doctrine The Persons Case is often remembered for its impact on women's participation in public life. Lawyers and judges, however, frequently focus on another aspect of the decision. In explaining why the Constitution should not be interpreted narrowly, Lord Sankey described Canada's Constitution as: "a living tree capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits." [3] Those words became one of the most important constitutional principles in Canadian history. The "living tree" doctrine recognizes that constitutions are intended to endure for generations. Society changes. Technology changes. Governments change. A constitution written in one era must remain capable of functioning in another. The doctrine does not permit courts to rewrite the Constitution whenever they wish. Rather, it acknowledges that constitutional language should be interpreted in a way that allows it to remain meaningful as society evolves. [3] Nearly a century later, Canadian courts continue to rely on this principle. Why the Persons Case Still Matters The legal significance of the Persons Case extends far beyond Senate appointments. The decision helped shape the modern approach to constitutional interpretation in Canada. [3][5] Whenever courts consider how constitutional provisions apply to issues that could not have been anticipated by earlier generations, they are often applying principles that can be traced back to the Persons Case. [3] The case also serves as a reminder that constitutional disputes often involve more than technical legal questions. The original issue concerned a single word. Yet that word affected who could participate in one of Canada's most important democratic institutions. Many landmark legal decisions begin in a similar way. What appears to be a narrow legal question can have far-reaching consequences. Common Misconceptions About the Persons Case The Persons Case is frequently misunderstood. One common misconception is that women were not considered legal persons before 1929. That is not accurate. Women could own property, enter contracts, commence legal proceedings, inherit assets, and exercise numerous legal rights long before the case was decided. [5] The issue before the courts was far narrower. The question was whether women were included within the meaning of "Persons" in a specific constitutional provision dealing with Senate appointments. [2][3] Another misconception is that the decision instantly created equality between men and women. It did not. Many barriers remained. The Persons Case represented an important milestone, but it was only one chapter in a much broader history of legal, political, and social change. [5][6] Historical Recognition and Modern Discussion The Famous Five occupy a prominent place in Canadian history. Statues commemorating the group stand on Parliament Hill in Ottawa and in Calgary's Olympic Plaza. [4][5] The case is routinely taught in schools, discussed in constitutional law courses, and referenced in public conversations about equality and constitutional rights. At the same time, modern discussions have become more nuanced. Historians have noted that some members of the Famous Five supported positions that are viewed critically today, including support for eugenics policies. [5] As a result, contemporary discussions often seek to acknowledge both the importance of the legal achievement and the broader historical context surrounding the individuals involved. A Legacy That Continues Nearly one hundred years after the decision was released, the Persons Case remains one of the most influential constitutional decisions in Canadian history. [3][5] Its legacy can be found not only in the Senate chambers that women were eventually permitted to enter, but also in courtrooms across the country where judges continue to interpret the Constitution as a living document. [3] The question posed by the Famous Five in 1927 appeared deceptively simple. Yet the answer reshaped Canadian constitutional law and helped define how future generations would understand equality, citizenship, and constitutional interpretation. What began as a challenge to a long-standing legal assumption ultimately became one of the most important constitutional decisions in Canadian history. References [1] Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict, c 3 (UK), s 24 Government of Canada – Justice Laws Website https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-1.html [2] Reference re Meaning of the Word "Persons" in Section 24 of the British North America Act, 1867 [1928] SCR 276 Supreme Court of Canada CanLII https://canlii.ca/t/g18jr [3] Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General) [1930] A.C. 124 (Judicial Committee of the Privy Council) CanLII https://canlii.ca/t/gbvs4 [4] The Famous Five and the Persons Case Library of Parliament https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/BackgroundPapers/PDF/2019-33-E [5] Persons Case The Canadian Encyclopedia https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/persons-case [6] Suffrage The Canadian Encyclopedia https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/suffrage

Written by: Sara Santos-Vigneault Date: June 6, 2026 Can a constitutional land claim affect property that has been privately owned for generations? It is a question that has increasingly appeared in Canadian courtrooms, government negotiations, and public debate. Recent Aboriginal title cases in British Columbia and New Brunswick have renewed discussion about the relationship between Indigenous land rights, Crown authority, and private property ownership. Across Canada, Aboriginal title remains one of the most significant and evolving areas of constitutional law. It touches on questions of history, land ownership, reconciliation, Indigenous self-determination, government authority, and the legal framework governing property rights. For Indigenous nations, Aboriginal title often involves recognition of land occupied and governed long before European settlement and the creation of Canada. For governments, it raises questions about constitutional obligations, consultation, accommodation, and land management. For private landowners and businesses, recent litigation has generated discussion about legal certainty and the interaction between constitutionally protected Indigenous rights and existing property interests. Canadian courts have repeatedly confirmed that Aboriginal title forms part of Canadian law and is protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. [1] At the same time, courts continue to grapple with one of the most complex questions in Canadian constitutional law: what happens when Aboriginal title is claimed over land that is already privately owned? Recent decisions in British Columbia and New Brunswick have brought that issue into sharper focus. Although both cases concern Aboriginal title, they reached different conclusions regarding the role of private property within title claims. As a result, the debate has attracted national attention and highlighted unresolved questions that may eventually require further guidance from appellate courts or the Supreme Court of Canada. Understanding Aboriginal Title Aboriginal title is a unique legal interest in land recognized by Canadian common law and protected by the Constitution. Unlike ordinary ownership rights that arise through grants, deeds, or land transfers, Aboriginal title originates from the historic occupation and use of land by Indigenous peoples before the assertion of Crown sovereignty. The legal concept reflects the reality that Indigenous societies occupied, governed, and relied upon their traditional territories long before European settlement. [2] The Supreme Court of Canada has described Aboriginal title as a right to the land itself. It includes the right to occupy the land, possess it, benefit economically from it, and make decisions regarding its use, subject to certain limitations designed to preserve the land for future generations of the title-holding community. [3] Aboriginal title differs from other Aboriginal rights. Aboriginal rights may protect specific traditional practices, customs, or activities. Aboriginal title, by contrast, concerns the land itself and the relationship between Indigenous peoples and their traditional territories. Historical Foundations Modern Aboriginal title law did not emerge suddenly. Its roots extend back centuries. One of the earliest legal acknowledgements of Indigenous land interests appeared in the Royal Proclamation of 1763. Issued following the Seven Years' War, the Proclamation recognized that Indigenous nations possessed interests in their lands and provided that only the Crown could acquire those lands through treaty or surrender. [4] Although interpretations of the Royal Proclamation continue to be debated, it remains one of the foundational documents in Canadian Indigenous law. For much of Canada's history, however, Aboriginal title received limited judicial recognition. That began to change in 1973 with the landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision in Calder v. British Columbia (Attorney General). [5] While the Court did not ultimately grant the declaration sought by the Nisga'a Nation, several judges recognized that Aboriginal title existed in Canadian law independent of any Crown grant. The decision is widely viewed as a turning point in the development of modern Aboriginal rights jurisprudence. The years that followed saw increasing recognition of Indigenous rights through both litigation and constitutional reform, culminating in the adoption of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Constitutional Protection Under Section 35 Section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides: "The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed." [1] Although the Constitution does not specifically define Aboriginal title, Canadian courts have consistently held that proven Aboriginal title falls within the protection of section 35. The constitutional status of Aboriginal title distinguishes it from ordinary property disputes. Questions involving title claims often engage broader constitutional principles concerning Crown sovereignty, Indigenous rights, reconciliation, and governmental obligations. Because Aboriginal title is constitutionally protected, governments may be required to consult Indigenous communities before approving activities that could affect asserted or established rights. The extent of those obligations depends on the circumstances of each case. [6] How Aboriginal Title Is Proven Aboriginal title is not established simply through historical association with a particular area. Canadian courts require evidence demonstrating sufficient occupation of land prior to Crown sovereignty. The Supreme Court's decisions in Delgamuukw v. British Columbia and Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia established the primary framework for proving Aboriginal title. [7][3] Generally, courts consider whether there was: Sufficient occupation of the land before Crown sovereignty Continuity between historical occupation and present-day connection, where applicable Exclusive occupation at the time sovereignty was asserted Evidence may include oral histories, archaeological findings, traditional land use patterns, maps, expert testimony, historical records, and Indigenous knowledge. Courts have repeatedly emphasized that Aboriginal title claims must be assessed from both Indigenous and common-law perspectives. The Tsilhqot'in Decision and Modern Aboriginal Title Law In 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada released what is often considered the most significant Aboriginal title decision in Canadian history. In Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia, the Court granted a declaration of Aboriginal title over approximately 1,750 square kilometres of land in British Columbia. [3] The decision represented the first time the Supreme Court formally recognized Aboriginal title to a specific area of land. The Court confirmed that Aboriginal title provides substantial decision-making authority regarding land use and emphasized that governments must either obtain consent from title holders or satisfy constitutional requirements to justify infringements upon title lands. The decision significantly influenced subsequent litigation across Canada and continues to serve as the leading authority on Aboriginal title. Aboriginal Title and Private Property While Aboriginal title has become increasingly established within Canadian law, the interaction between title claims and private property remains one of the most debated issues in the field. Many title claims involve territories that today contain municipalities, highways, businesses, resource developments, and privately owned homes. Private ownership in Canada is commonly held as fee simple ownership. Fee simple represents the broadest form of private ownership recognized under Canadian property law and generally provides extensive rights to possess, use, transfer, and sell property. When Aboriginal title claims overlap with lands held in fee simple ownership, difficult legal questions emerge. Can Aboriginal title be recognized over lands that are currently privately owned? If title is recognized, what effect does that have on existing ownership rights? If compensation is required, who bears responsibility? These questions have become increasingly important as larger and more complex title claims proceed through Canadian courts. The Cowichan Tribes Decision In 2025, the British Columbia Supreme Court considered these issues in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada (Attorney General). [8] The litigation involved a claim for Aboriginal title over lands that included privately owned fee simple properties. The Court concluded that private ownership did not automatically remove land from the scope of an Aboriginal title claim. In reaching that conclusion, the Court recognized that questions concerning the existence of Aboriginal title and questions concerning remedies may involve separate legal analyses. The decision attracted significant attention because it suggested that the existence of private ownership alone may not necessarily prevent a court from considering whether Aboriginal title exists over a particular area. The Court did not invalidate private property ownership. However, the decision highlighted unresolved questions regarding how Aboriginal title and private ownership may coexist within the broader constitutional framework. The Wolastoqey Decision A different approach emerged in New Brunswick. In Wolastoqey Nations v. New Brunswick, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal considered claims involving a vast area of the province, including privately owned land. The case attracted significant attention because the claim area included communities, businesses, farms, and properties that had been privately owned for generations. [9] At the heart of the dispute was a question many landowners were asking: can Aboriginal title be declared over land that is already privately owned? The Court ultimately concluded that declarations of Aboriginal title were not available against private landowners holding fee simple interests. While the decision was welcomed by many property owners seeking certainty regarding land ownership, it did not end the broader conversation about Aboriginal title. Importantly, the Court did not reject Aboriginal title itself. Rather, it focused on the remedies available in the circumstances. The Court indicated that findings relating to Aboriginal title could still be relevant when considering claims against the Crown, including potential compensation claims arising from historical government actions. In practical terms, the decision drew a distinction between claims against private landowners and claims against governments. While privately owned lands could not be subject to the declaration being sought, the underlying questions about Aboriginal title and Crown responsibility remained legally significant. The case continued to attract national attention after the Wolastoqey Nation sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. On May 28, 2026, the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal, leaving the New Brunswick Court of Appeal's decision in place. Although the Supreme Court did not comment on the merits of the case, the result means the Court of Appeal's decision currently remains the governing authority in New Brunswick. When viewed alongside the Cowichan decision in British Columbia, the case demonstrates that courts across Canada continue to grapple with how Aboriginal title claims interact with modern systems of land ownership and property rights. Why the Debate Continues The recent cases have drawn national attention because they raise questions that extend beyond the courtroom. Many Aboriginal title claims involve areas that today contain homes, businesses, roads, farms, and entire communities. As a result, discussions about Aboriginal title often involve both historical Indigenous land rights and modern property interests. [8][9] For Indigenous nations, these claims may involve recognition of long-standing connections to traditional territories. For governments, they raise constitutional and policy considerations. For private landowners, they can create questions about how existing property rights fit within an evolving area of Canadian law. [1][6][7] These cases are also rarely resolved quickly. Aboriginal title law has developed through decades of litigation, including Calder, Delgamuukw, Haida Nation, Tsilhqot'in, Cowichan, and Wolastoqey. Each case has answered some questions while raising new ones. [3][5][6][7][8][9] Although the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the Wolastoqey appeal in 2026, that does not mean the broader debate has ended. Aboriginal title claims continue to raise questions about land ownership, resource development, compensation, and Crown obligations. [9][10] The challenge is not simply determining whether Aboriginal title exists. It also involves determining how established title interacts with modern legal systems built upon centuries of Crown land administration, property registration, and private ownership. [8][9] These issues do not lend themselves to simple answers. Unresolved Questions Several important questions remain before Canadian courts: Can declarations of Aboriginal title be granted over all forms of privately owned land? How should courts address overlapping interests between title holders and private owners? What remedies are available when Aboriginal title is established? Under what circumstances might compensation be available? What role should provincial and federal governments play in resolving competing interests? Future litigation may provide greater clarity. Additional guidance may also emerge through negotiated settlements, treaties, and government policy initiatives. Reconciliation and the Broader Legal Context Discussions surrounding Aboriginal title frequently occur within the broader framework of reconciliation. The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly described reconciliation as an important objective underlying section 35 and the relationship between Indigenous peoples and the Crown. [6][7] Within Canadian law, reconciliation does not provide a simple answer to competing land claims. Rather, it serves as a constitutional principle informing how courts, governments, and Indigenous communities address historical and contemporary issues concerning Indigenous rights. As Aboriginal title law continues to evolve, reconciliation remains a central part of the legal conversation. Canadian law recognizes Aboriginal title as a constitutionally protected right arising from the historic occupation of land by Indigenous peoples prior to Crown sovereignty. Over the past several decades, courts have developed an increasingly detailed framework governing the recognition and protection of those rights. At the same time, questions concerning the relationship between Aboriginal title and privately owned land remain unsettled. Recent decisions in British Columbia and New Brunswick demonstrate that Canadian courts continue to confront difficult constitutional and property law issues. As litigation, negotiations, and policy discussions continue across the country, Aboriginal title will likely remain one of the most significant and closely watched areas of Canadian law. References [1] Constitution Act, 1982, s. 35 Government of Canada https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-12.html [2] Guerin v. The Queen, [1984] 2 SCR 335 Supreme Court of Canada https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1984/1984canlii25/1984canlii25.html [3] Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44 Supreme Court of Canada https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2014/2014scc44/2014scc44.html [4] Royal Proclamation, 1763 The Canadian Encyclopedia https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/royal-proclamation-of-1763 [5] Calder v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1973] SCR 313 Supreme Court of Canada https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1973/1973canlii4/1973canlii4.html [6] Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004 SCC 73 Supreme Court of Canada https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc73/2004scc73.html [7] Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 SCR 1010 Supreme Court of Canada https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1997/1997canlii302/1997canlii302.html [8] Cowichan Tribes v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 BCSC 1490 Supreme Court of British Columbiahttps://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2025/2025bcsc1490/2025bcsc1490.html [9] Wolastoqey Nations v. New Brunswick, 2025 NBCA 30 New Brunswick Court of Appeal https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2026/2026canlii50180/2026canlii50180.html

Written by: Sara Santos-Vigneault Date: June 1, 2026 On May 15, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16, recognizing a new tort of intimate partner violence. The decision became one of the most significant recent developments in Canadian civil law and reflected a growing recognition that abuse is not always a single event. Sometimes it is a pattern. [1] For many years, domestic abuse discussions often focused on visible violence such as assaults or physical injuries. The Supreme Court took a broader view. The Court recognized that abuse may also occur through control. That control may involve isolation, financial restriction, monitoring, humiliation, intimidation, repeated threats, or limiting another person’s independence. These acts may not always leave visible injuries, but they can still cause significant harm. [2][3] The ruling does not create a new criminal offence. It concerns civil law and damages between private parties. [1] Why This Case Reached the Supreme Court The case involved Kuldeep Kaur Ahluwalia and Balraj Singh Ahluwalia. According to the court record, the parties were married for approximately sixteen years before separating in 2016. The evidence described allegations involving physical violence, emotional abuse, controlling behaviour, financial restriction, intimidation, and ongoing mistreatment during the relationship. [1][4] The matter first reached the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. In March 2022, the trial judge concluded that existing legal categories did not fully capture what had occurred. The court recognized a new tort called family violence and awarded damages. [4] The Ontario Court of Appeal later reviewed the matter. In July 2023, the Court accepted that abuse had occurred and found that existing legal remedies, including assault and intentional infliction of mental suffering, could still apply. However, it concluded that creating a new tort was unnecessary because Canadian law already contained available remedies. [5] The matter then proceeded to the Supreme Court of Canada. By the time the case arrived there, the question had become larger than one relationship. Could Canadian civil law recognize coercive control and patterns of abuse as their own form of legally recognized harm? Domestic Abuse Is Not Always Physical The decision did not emerge in isolation. Canadian research and public discussion have increasingly focused on coercive control and non physical forms of abuse. [2][3] Domestic abuse may involve physical violence, but it may also include: Isolation from family or friends Monitoring communications Financial restriction Humiliation Controlling employment or education Repeated intimidation Surveillance or tracking behaviour [2] Statistics Canada has repeatedly reported that intimate partner violence remains one of the most common forms of violence experienced in Canada. [6] Research has also shown that psychological abuse is reported more frequently than physical violence. Statistics Canada reported that approximately 44% of women and girls aged 15 years and older who had ever been in an intimate partner relationship reported experiencing some form of intimate partner violence during their lifetime. This included psychological abuse, physical violence, sexual violence, coercive control, and technology facilitated abuse. [7] This distinction became important. A physical assault may happen once.. Financial control may continue for years. Isolation may happen slowly. Monitoring may become routine. Viewed separately, each event may appear limited. Viewed together, they may reveal an ongoing pattern. That difference became central in Ahluwalia. [1] Why the Supreme Court Recognized a New Tort Canadian law already recognized several legal remedies. Assault addressed physical violence. Battery dealt with unwanted physical contact. Intentional infliction of mental suffering addressed psychological injury. The Supreme Court did not reject these remedies. Instead, the Court found they often focus on individual incidents. Intimate partner violence may operate differently. It may involve repeated conduct affecting dignity, equality, autonomy, and independence over long periods of time. [1] The Court recognized that some abusive relationships function through accumulation. No single event fully explains the harm. The pattern does. This became one of the reasons for recognizing the new tort. The majority described intimate partner violence as conduct involving coercion, domination, fear, repeated harmful behaviour, and loss of autonomy within intimate relationships. [1] What Is the Tort of Intimate Partner Violence? The Supreme Court recognized the tort of intimate partner violence. The Court stated that liability generally involves: Conduct occurring within an intimate relationship or after its breakdown Intentional behaviour Conduct that objectively amounts to coercive or controlling behaviour [1] One important change involved the idea of harm itself. Traditional tort claims often separate conduct from injury. The Court recognized that repeated domination and coercive control may themselves represent the injury. [1] This shifted the focus away from isolated incidents and toward the overall pattern. Why Existing Remedies Were Viewed as Incomplete Canadian law already contained several possible responses. These included: Assault Battery False imprisonment Intentional infliction of mental suffering Criminal prosecution where appropriate [1][5] The Supreme Court did not find these remedies useless. Instead, the Court found they may not always reflect years of intimidation, humiliation, isolation, monitoring, or financial control. Someone experiencing abuse over many years may not fit neatly into a list of separate events. The Court recognized that the overall pattern may tell a different legal story. Potential Effects of the Decision The decision may influence how future courts discuss intimate partner violence in civil proceedings. Possible areas of impact include: Greater recognition of non physical abuse Increased focus on coercive control Broader discussion of dignity and autonomy More attention to patterns rather than isolated incidents [1] The decision may also affect language used in legal proceedings. Emotional abuse and coercive control have sometimes been difficult to place within traditional legal categories. The new tort creates a framework for discussing those experiences. Why Some View the Decision as Important One reason the ruling received significant attention is that it recognizes harm that may not always be visible. Financial control does not necessarily leave physical injuries. Isolation may not appear in photographs. Humiliation often leaves no physical evidence. Monitoring movements or communications may not fit comfortably into older legal categories. The Supreme Court acknowledged that these forms of conduct can still affect: Dignity Equality Personal independence Autonomy [1] For many observers, this represented an important shift because it moved beyond the idea that abuse must always be physical to be serious. Questions That Remain The decision was not unanimous. Three judges dissented in part and disagreed with recognizing the new tort. [1] Questions remain regarding how future courts will apply the decision. Areas likely to continue developing include: Defining coercive control Distinguishing harmful conduct from ordinary relationship conflict Interaction with existing tort claims Evidence requirements Long term effects on civil and family proceedings The recognition of intimate partner violence as a tort represents a significant change in Canadian civil law. The decision did not create a new criminal offence and it does not replace existing family or criminal processes. Instead, it reflects an evolving understanding that abuse may exist not only as isolated acts of violence, but also as ongoing patterns affecting dignity, autonomy, equality, and personal independence. References [1] Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16. https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/21505/index.do [2] Department of Justice Canada, What is Coercive Control? https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/ccc/index.html [3] Department of Justice Canada, Family Violence and Coercive Control Resources. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/fl-df/fv-vf/coercive.html [4] Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2022 ONSC 1303 (CanLII). https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc1303/2022onsc1303.html [5] Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2023 ONCA 476 (CanLII). https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2023/2023onca476/2023onca476.html [6] Statistics Canada, Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/index-eng.htm [7] Statistics Canada, Experiences of violent victimization and unwanted sexual behaviours among women and girls in Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2021001/article/00001-eng.htm

Written by: Sara Santos-Vigneault Date: May 25, 2026 Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act, 2026, has become one of the most controversial technology bills currently before Parliament. The Liberal government says the legislation is necessary because organized crime, child exploitation, terrorism, foreign interference, fraud, and other serious investigations increasingly involve encrypted communications and digital systems. [1][2] Critics do not necessarily dispute those concerns. The disagreement is whether Bill C-22 is the correct response and whether Canada is moving from updating investigations toward influencing how secure digital systems themselves are designed. Technology companies, privacy advocates, cybersecurity professionals, opposition politicians, and digital rights groups have raised concerns involving encryption, technical access obligations, metadata retention, economic effects, and the broader impact on Canada’s technology sector. [3][4][5] The Birth of Bill C-22 Bill C-22 was introduced in the House of Commons on March 12, 2026, by the Minister of Public Safety. The legislation is formally titled the Lawful Access Act, 2026. [1] The bill contains three major parts. Part 1 amends existing legislation including: Criminal Code Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Cannabis Act Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act [6] These amendments deal primarily with digital information and investigative access. Part 2 creates the proposed Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act. This section has attracted most of the criticism because it introduces technical capability obligations for certain electronic service providers. [2][6] Part 3 creates mandatory parliamentary review after implementation. [6] Legislative Progress and Criticism at Each Stage First Reading – March 12, 2026 At introduction, the government presented Bill C-22 as modernization legislation designed to keep investigative powers effective in a digital environment. Public Safety Canada argued investigators increasingly encounter technological barriers when attempting to access evidence linked to serious crime. [7] Criticism emerged quickly. Privacy organizations questioned whether technical access requirements could indirectly affect encryption systems. Technology companies warned the bill might create pressure to redesign secure infrastructure. [3][8] Second Reading – April 20, 2026 Bill C-22 passed second reading and moved to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. [1] At this stage, opposition broadened. The discussion expanded from privacy advocacy into the technology sector itself. Secure messaging providers, VPN companies, cybersecurity commentators, and legal analysts began publicly questioning the bill’s scope and possible consequences. [5][8][9] One question appeared repeatedly: Canada already has investigative powers. Is another layer necessary? Committee Stage – Current Position As of May 17, 2026, Bill C-22 remains before committee. It has not passed Parliament, has not completed Senate review, and has not received Royal Assent. [1] Expected areas of committee examination include: Encryption protections Metadata retention Technical capability obligations Ministerial powers Oversight mechanisms Economic consequences What the Liberal Government Says The Liberal government maintains that Bill C-22 is not intended to create unrestricted surveillance. Public Safety Canada states the bill preserves lawful access where judicial authorization already exists. The government argues that investigators increasingly encounter technological barriers even after warrants or legal authority have been obtained. [2][7] Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree stated: “Canada needs laws that are adapted to the technological world we live in, and the way criminals exploit it.” [7] Justice Minister Sean Fraser stated: “Criminals are using increasingly sophisticated methods online to threaten public safety.” [7] The government also rejects claims that Bill C-22 requires encryption backdoors. Public Safety Canada stated the legislation would not require companies to introduce “systemic vulnerabilities” into encrypted systems. [2] The Liberal position is therefore relatively clear: Existing investigative powers remain. Bill C-22 attempts to preserve their effectiveness where technology limits access. Existing Investigative Powers and the Question of Necessity Part of the criticism surrounding Bill C-22 comes from the fact that Canadian investigators already possess significant legal tools. Police and the RCMP already operate under authorities found within the Criminal Code, including production orders, preservation demands, search warrants, tracking authorities, and wiretap provisions. Specialized RCMP units already conduct cybercrime investigations, digital forensic analysis, online evidence collection, and financial investigations. [10][11][12] Because these mechanisms already exist, critics question whether Bill C-22 represents a necessary expansion or whether more targeted reforms could address technological challenges instead. [8] Supporters respond differently. Their position is that legal authority loses effectiveness if encryption prevents access to information already authorized by courts. Opponents answer that the issue changes once legislation affects system architecture itself. The disagreement therefore becomes: Canada already has investigative powers. Should government also influence the technical systems supporting those powers? Companies Warning About Withdrawal, Reduced Operations, or Market Exit Several technology companies have publicly criticized Bill C-22. 'Not all have threatened to leave Canada. Signal Signal issued one of the strongest responses. Signal vice-president Udbhav Tiwari reportedly stated: “We would rather pull out of the country than be compelled to compromise on the privacy promises we have made to our users.” [8] Signal’s concerns focus on encryption integrity and privacy commitments. NordVPN NordVPN warned that obligations affecting no log systems or encryption architecture could affect Canadian operations. [5] The company stated: “To prevent this, we will consider all viable options, including limiting or, if necessary, removing our presence from Canadian jurisdiction.” [5] Windscribe Toronto based VPN company Windscribe also raised concerns. Windscribe reportedly stated: “We won’t be far behind if C-22 passes.” [9] Because Windscribe operates from Canada, its position attracted additional attention. Apple Apple publicly criticized the legislation. Reuters reported Apple stated: “This legislation could allow the Canadian government to force companies to break encryption by inserting backdoors into their products, something Apple will never do.” [3] Apple has not publicly stated it would leave Canada. Its criticism focuses on encryption. Meta Meta also opposed aspects of the legislation and reportedly warned about broad powers and limited safeguards. [3] Meta has not announced withdrawal plans or operational reductions. Why These Companies Matter The significance is not necessarily the number of companies involved.It is the type of companies involved. Signal, NordVPN, and Windscribe operate directly in: Encryption Secure communications Privacy infrastructure VPN technology Cybersecurity services These are sectors directly connected to lawful access legislation. Potential Effects on Canada The discussion surrounding Bill C-22 often focuses on policing and privacy.The economic and technology impacts receive less attention. At present, no major company has withdrawn from Canada because of Bill C-22. The bill remains before committee and the concerns remain prospective. [1][5][8][9] Technology Investment and Market Confidence Canada has spent years presenting itself as a destination for: Technology development Cybersecurity growth Artificial intelligence Digital innovation Critics argue that if encryption providers, VPN services, or privacy companies begin reconsidering Canadian operations, broader investment decisions could also be affected. Companies evaluating Canadian expansion may examine: Regulatory uncertainty Compliance costs Technical obligations Data retention concerns Reputation risk Even uncertainty itself may affect investment decisions. Privacy and Cybersecurity Services Several companies speaking publicly operate specifically in privacy and cybersecurity sectors. If services become limited or operations change, the impact could extend beyond ordinary users. Secure systems are widely used by: Journalists Lawyers and legal professionals Businesses handling confidential information Human rights organizations Researchers Political actors Domestic violence support organizations Whistleblowers Critics argue that confidence in secure communications becomes especially important for these groups. Employment and Business Activity Possible concerns raised include effects on: Cybersecurity employment Software development Privacy compliance work Technology consulting Digital infrastructure services If technical operations move outside Canada, related economic activity may move as well. This issue became more notable because Windscribe itself is Canadian based. [9] Canada’s International Position Canada often promotes itself internationally as supporting: Privacy rights Rule of law Innovation Democratic institutions Secure digital markets Critics argue legislation perceived as overly broad could create tension between those goals and lawful access policy. Supporters disagree. Their position is that effective investigations and public safety are also essential components of democratic systems. The disagreement therefore is not whether public safety matters. It is whether stronger access requirements can exist without weakening privacy protections. Bill C-22 Is Not Canada’s First Lawful Access Debate Bill C-22 did not appear in isolation. Canada has debated lawful access legislation for more than a decade. One of the most significant earlier examples was Bill C-30, introduced in 2012 under the title Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act. [13] Bill C-30 proposed expanded access mechanisms involving telecommunications providers and subscriber information. The bill generated major public opposition. Critics argued it granted excessive access powers and raised privacy concerns. Then Public Safety Minister Vic Toews became widely associated with criticism after comments that opponents could stand “with us or with the child pornographers.” The remark attracted significant public backlash. [14] Bill C-30 was later abandoned. Although Bill C-22 differs structurally, many commentators see similarities. Michael Geist and other observers have argued that Canada repeatedly returns to lawful access debates as technology evolves. [8] Supporters respond that modern encryption and digital crime environments are substantially different from those discussed in 2012. The historical comparison remains debated. What is clear is that Canada has returned to this issue repeatedly. Bill C-22 represents the newest version of a discussion that has existed for years. Opposition Parties and Public Criticism Conservative MPs have criticized Bill C-22 as potentially excessive and have raised concerns regarding surveillance expansion. [5] The Bloc Québécois participated in second reading debate and questioned safeguards and proportionality. [1] Outside Parliament, criticism has come from: Privacy organizations Cybersecurity professionals Technology companies Digital rights advocates Encryption specialists Not all criticism is identical. Some argue the bill requires stronger protections. Others question whether the legislation is necessary at all. Why the Balance Is Controversial The controversy surrounding Bill C-22 is not whether police investigations should exist. Those powers already exist. The disagreement is whether existing tools have become ineffective because of encryption and whether technical access obligations create larger risks. Supporters argue serious crime increasingly depends on encrypted systems. Opponents argue strong encryption protects journalists, lawyers, businesses, domestic violence survivors, researchers, whistleblowers, and ordinary citizens. Bill C-22 sits directly between those positions. The Liberal government frames the legislation as modernization. Critics increasingly describe it as infrastructure level access. The debate therefore extends beyond warrants and investigations. It becomes a discussion about digital privacy architecture itself. Bill C-22 remains before committee and has not become law. The legislation continues to move through Parliament while debate grows around privacy, encryption, policing powers, and Canada’s future role in the technology sector. References [1] Parliament of Canada, LEGISinfo, Bill C-22. https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/c-22 [2] Public Safety Canada, Backgrounder: Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/news/2026/03/backgrounder--securing-access-to-information-in-bill-c-22.html [3] Reuters, “Apple, Meta warn Canadian bill could force them to weaken encryption,” May 2026. https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/apple-warns-canadian-bill-could-force-it-weaken-device-encryption-2026-05-07/ [4] Department of Justice Canada, Charter Statement for Bill C-22. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/c22_2.html [5] Global News, NordVPN response to Bill C-22. https://globalnews.ca/news/11851363/lawful-access-nordvpn-canada/ [6] Parliament of Canada, Bill C-22 First Reading Text. https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-22/first-reading [7] Public Safety Canada, News Release, March 12, 2026. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/news/2026/03/canada-introduces-new-tools-for-law-enforcement-to-investigate-threats-and-keep-canadians-safe.html [8] Michael Geist, Bill C-22 analysis. https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2026/05/bill-c-22s-groundhog-day-why-the-governments-dismissal-of-signal-apple-and-the-u-s-congress-concerns-runs-back-the-disastrous-online-news-act-playbook/ [9] TechRadar, Windscribe response. https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/windscribe-joins-signal-in-threatening-canada-exit-over-controversial-surveillance-bill [10] Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/ [11] RCMP Technical Investigative Services. https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/technical-investigative-services [12] RCMP National Cybercrime Coordination Unit. https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/national-cybercrime-coordination-unit [13] Parliament of Canada, Bill C-30, Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act. https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/41-1/bill/C-30/first-reading [14] CBC News, coverage of Bill C-30 lawful access debate. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tories-with-us-or-with-the-child-pornographers-toews-1.1130561

Written by: Sara Santos-Vigneault Date: May 18, 2026 What the Law Provides for Parents For many families, the arrival of a child is not just a personal milestone. It brings immediate, practical questions — how long can you take off work, will your job still be there, and how do you manage financially during that time? In Canada, these questions are addressed through a combination of laws and government programs. Job-protected leave is set out in provincial legislation such as the Employment Standards Act, 2000, which includes provisions for pregnancy leave, parental leave, and the right to return to the same or a comparable position after the leave ends. Income support is provided through federal programs like Employment Insurance, which offers maternity and parental benefits for eligible workers during that time away from work. Together, these laws and programs determine how long a parent can be away, whether their job is protected, and what financial support may be available. While often associated with mothers, the law does not treat it that way. Parental leave is built around caregiving, not gender, and applies to both parents, with specific provisions for pregnancy. How Parental Leave Laws Took Shape in Canada Parental leave did not appear overnight. It developed over time as work, family life, and expectations changed. Maternity benefits were first introduced in 1971 through the federal unemployment insurance system, now known as Employment Insurance. At that point, the focus was narrow — a short period of support for birth mothers after childbirth. [2] But over time, that approach stopped reflecting reality. More households relied on two incomes. More women were working long-term careers. Parenting roles also began to shift, with growing recognition that caregiving could be shared. Public expectations played a role here. People needed a system that actually worked with modern life, not against it. A major change came in 2000, when parental benefits were expanded and made shareable between parents. This marked a clear shift from a system focused only on maternity to one that recognized caregiving more broadly. [2] At the same time, provinces introduced and strengthened job protection. In Ontario, this protection is set out in the Employment Standards Act, 2000, which ensures that employees can take leave without losing their job. [1] The law changed because everyday life changed. How Parental Leave Works in Ontario In Ontario, parental leave is divided into two parts. Pregnancy leave applies to birth mothers and can last up to 17 weeks. After that, parental leave allows additional time away from work, extending up to: 61 weeks for those who took pregnancy leave 63 weeks for other parents The key point is job protection. Your employer cannot terminate your employment because you take leave, and you must be allowed to return to your position or a comparable one. [1] For context, the United States provides job-protected leave through the Family and Medical Leave Act, but only for up to 12 weeks and only if specific eligibility requirements are met. [3] What Happens to Income During Leave Time away from work is only part of the equation. Income matters just as much. In Canada, income support is provided through Employment Insurance (EI). Maternity benefits may be paid for up to 15 weeks, followed by parental benefits that can be shared between parents. [2] Families can choose between a shorter leave with higher weekly payments or a longer leave with lower payments. It’s not full income, but it provides some stability during a major life transition. In the United States, the situation is very different. Under the Family and Medical Leave Act, eligible employees can take up to 12 weeks of leave — but that leave is unpaid. [3] There is no federal requirement for paid parental leave. In practice, some workers rely on employer benefits or state programs, but others may receive no income at all during that time. Who Can Access Leave In Canada, the system is designed so that eligible workers can access both job protection and some level of income support. Pregnancy leave and parental leave work together to reflect both biological and caregiving roles. In the United States, access is more limited. Federal protections only apply if certain conditions are met, and not all workers qualify. For those trying to understand their rights in Canada, information is relatively accessible. Employment Insurance maternity and parental benefits can be found through the Government of Canada website, where applications are typically completed online. [2] In Ontario, job-protected leave is outlined under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, with additional guidance available through the Ministry of Labour. [1] Where questions come up, people often turn to government information lines or legal clinics for clarification on their rights. Why the Difference Matters These differences are not just technical. They affect how families actually experience the first months after a child is born or adopted. In Canada, the system allows for extended time away from work with some level of financial support. In the United States, the shorter timeframe and lack of guaranteed income can limit how long someone is realistically able to stay home. The result is two very different experiences built on two very different legal approaches. Conclusion Parental leave in Canada reflects a system that developed over time to match the realities of modern work and family life. It combines job protection with income support, allowing parents to take meaningful time away from work following the arrival of a child. A key part of that system is Employment Insurance, which provides partial income replacement during leave. While it does not fully replace a salary, it offers a level of stability at a time when many families are adjusting to new responsibilities. In contrast, the federal system in the United States provides a shorter period of job-protected leave, and that leave is unpaid. This means that access to income during that time depends largely on employer policies or state-level programs. For some workers, that may result in no income at all during leave. This contrast highlights how differently the two systems approach the same issue. In Canada, the law supports both time away from work and some continuity of income. In the United States, the structure places greater reliance on individual circumstances. Both systems recognize the need for time away from work. The difference lies in how that time is supported. References [1] Employment Standards Act, 2000, SO 2000, c 41 https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/00e41 [2] Government of Canada, Employment Insurance Maternity and Parental Benefits https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/ei/ei-maternity-parental.html [3] Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fmla

Written by: Sara Santos-Vigneault Date: May 11, 2026 When the Record Does Not Match What Happened A matter can be resolved, confirmed, and documented, and still appear before a judge as if nothing happened. That outcome reflects how court procedure operates in Ontario. What determines the status of a matter is not what has been communicated or even what has been completed behind the scenes, but what appears in the official court record. Across Ontario courts, whether governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Family Law Rules, or the Rules of the Small Claims Court, the same principle applies under the Courts of Justice Act. If the record does not reflect a step, the court may proceed as though it has not occurred. Filing Is Defined by Acceptance, Not Submission Submitting a document does not make it part of the court file. Under Rule 4.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a document is filed only when it is accepted by the court office. [1] The same approach applies in family and small claims matters, where electronic submissions are not considered filed until they are reviewed and confirmed by the court. [2][3] Electronic systems generate confirmation notices at the time of submission. These confirmations indicate that a document has been sent, but they do not establish that it has been accepted into the record. This distinction is central. The legal effect of a document depends on acceptance, not submission. Court Filing Delays Ontario and Processing Timelines Ontario courts rely on electronic systems to receive and process filings. Practice directions indicate that submitted documents are reviewed by court staff and that notification may be provided within a short timeframe, often within approximately three business days, as to whether a document has been accepted or rejected. [4] At the same time, those directions confirm that uploading a document does not constitute filing. Filing occurs only after review and acceptance. [4] In practice, timelines are not always consistent with that stated timeframe. Some documents are processed within a few days, while others remain pending for longer periods. Instances may arise where documents remain unprocessed for several weeks after submission. The procedural rules do not establish a fixed deadline for review. Processing depends on administrative factors, including the volume of filings and system capacity. During this period, the document does not form part of the official record, even though it has been submitted. Communication and the Limits of Administrative Updates Court staff manage scheduling and administrative aspects of proceedings. Communication often occurs through email or telephone. In practice, communication may be delayed or limited. Calls may not be answered, messages may not be returned, and email responses may take time. This can make it difficult to confirm the current status of a matter while it is progressing. Even where communication occurs, it does not alter the court record. A matter may be described as resolved or removed from a hearing list in correspondence. If the file has not been updated, the matter may still appear as active. The court relies on the record before it at the time it reviews the file. Administrative factors, including processing delays, volume of filings, and internal handling of materials, may contribute to differences between what has occurred and what appears in the record. Multiple Systems, One Record Court procedure operates across several systems. Depending on the matter, documents may be submitted through Civil Submissions Online, the Justice Services Online portal, or other filing platforms. Materials may also be uploaded separately to CaseLines for hearings. Each court type involves its own forms, procedural requirements, and practice directions. Completing a single procedural step may involve actions across more than one system. These systems do not update simultaneously. A document may be submitted and uploaded, but not appear in the official court record until it has been reviewed and accepted. Public legal information sources, including Community Legal Education Ontario, recognize that court procedures can be difficult to interpret due to their structure and the number of steps involved. [5] When a Matter Proceeds Despite Being Properly Removed A matter is removed from a hearing list when the required procedural step has been completed and reflected in the court record. Even where those steps have been properly completed, a matter may still proceed if the record has not yet been updated. This follows from the structure of the applicable rules. A document or request only has procedural effect once it has been accepted and entered into the record. [1][2][3] As a result, a matter that has been addressed, supported by filed materials and written confirmation, may still appear on a hearing list if the record has not been updated in time. The issue is not whether the step was taken, but whether the record reflects it at the time the court reviews the file. Where this occurs, the court considers the procedural record and supporting documentation, including submission confirmations and correspondence, to clarify the status of the matter. Documentation and Record Context When differences arise between what has occurred and what appears in the record, documentation provides context. This may include submission confirmations, time stamped records, copies of materials, and correspondence with court staff. These materials do not replace the official record, but they may assist in explaining how a matter progressed. Conclusion Court procedure in Ontario is structured around a formal record that determines how a matter proceeds. A document becomes part of that record only when it is accepted, and a procedural step takes effect only when it is reflected in the file. Electronic systems and administrative communication support the process, but they do not replace it. Where timing and record entry do not align, the court relies on the record as it exists at the time of review, together with any documentation that clarifies how that record came to be. References [1] Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194, r 4.05, online: Ontario e Laws https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/900194 [2] Family Law Rules, O Reg 114 99, rr 6, 25, online: Ontario e Laws https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/990114 [3] Rules of the Small Claims Court, O Reg 258 98, r 4.01, online: Ontario e Laws https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/980258 [4] Ontario Court of Justice, Practice Direction, Filing Documents Electronically, online: Ontario Courts https://www.ontariocourts.ca/ocj/notices/pd-filing-documents-electronically-toronto-public-portal/ [5] Community Legal Education Ontario, Court Processes and Procedures, online: CLEO Connect https://cleoconnect.ca/](https://cleoconnect.ca/

Written by: Sara Santos-Vigneault Date: May 4, 2026 At one time, keeping chickens was a normal part of daily life in towns and cities. Small backyard flocks provided eggs and food, and this practice existed alongside early forms of local regulation. Today, whether chickens are allowed in residential areas depends entirely on where someone lives. In Ontario, one municipality may allow a few backyard hens, while another prohibits them completely. This difference does not come from a single provincial rule. It reflects how municipalities regulate land use, animals, and property within their own boundaries. Municipal Authority Over Backyard Chickens Municipalities in Ontario have the authority to regulate animals and land use under the Municipal Act, 2001. This legislation allows local governments to pass bylaws dealing with public health, safety, and nuisance concerns. [1] Backyard chickens are usually addressed through: Zoning bylaws Animal control bylaws Property standards rules In most cases, chickens are treated in one of two ways: As a permitted use, with conditions; or As livestock, which is not allowed in residential areas That classification determines whether chickens are allowed at all. Where Backyard Chickens Are Allowed Some Ontario municipalities now allow backyard hens under controlled programs. In Toronto, chickens are permitted through a structured program with licensing, coop standards, and limits on the number of birds. [2] Ottawa allows backyard chickens in certain residential areas, subject to property size, setbacks, and care requirements. [3] Cities such as Guelph and Kingston follow similar models, allowing hens while setting clear rules to manage their impact. [4][5] These systems do not remove regulation. They allow chickens, but within defined limits. Where Backyard Chickens Are Not Allowed Other municipalities continue to prohibit backyard chickens by treating them as livestock that does not belong in residential zones. In Mississauga, for example, chickens are not permitted in most residential areas. [6] This approach reflects a more traditional view of land use, where farming activities are kept separate from urban neighbourhoods. Common Rules Where Chickens Are Permitted Where backyard chickens are allowed, the rules tend to look similar across municipalities. Typical requirements include: Limits on the number of hens No roosters Specific rules for coop size and placement Minimum distances from neighbouring properties Ongoing cleaning and waste management No on-site slaughter These rules are designed to address concerns about noise, odour, and public health. Why Backyard Chickens Are Coming Back Interest in backyard chickens has grown in recent years. For many households, they are connected to: Access to fresh eggs Greater control over food sources Interest in local and sustainable living Reducing reliance on larger supply systems At the same time, bringing food production into residential spaces raises questions about how far property use can go before it begins to affect neighbours. Property Use and Legal Limits Owning property in Ontario does not mean it can be used without limits. Municipal bylaws place boundaries on how land can be used, especially in residential areas. Backyard chicken rules reflect this balance. They allow or restrict certain uses of property based on how those uses affect the surrounding community. In this way, the issue is not only about chickens. It is about how municipalities manage competing uses of land in growing urban areas. Legal Continuity: Then and Now Modern backyard chicken bylaws are not new in principle. Municipalities have long regulated animals within towns and cities. Earlier rules often focused on animals roaming freely or being kept in populated areas. Today’s bylaws are more detailed, but they address the same basic concerns. The purpose has remained consistent: balancing individual property use with its impact on others. Conclusion Backyard chicken laws in Ontario are set at the municipal level, which is why the rules can look completely different from one city to the next. Some municipalities allow a small number of hens under clear conditions, while others do not allow them at all. As food costs continue to rise and interest in clean, sustainable living grows, more people are looking for simple ways to stay connected to what they eat. For some households, keeping a small number of hens is part of that shift. At the same time, property use in Ontario has never been unlimited. Municipalities have long had the authority to decide what is appropriate in residential areas, especially where a use may affect neighbours. Chicken bylaws are one example of that balance in practice. The result is a system where something as simple as keeping a few hens can be treated very differently depending on location. Those differences reflect both long-standing legal authority and changing expectations about how people use their property and how closely they want to be connected to their food. References [1] Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/01m25 [2] City of Toronto – Backyard Hens https://www.toronto.ca/community-people/animals-pets/pets-in-the-city/backyard-hens/ [3] City of Ottawa – Backyard Chickens https://ottawa.ca/en/living-ottawa/animals-and-pets/backyard-chickens [4] City of Guelph – Backyard Chickens https://guelph.ca/living/animals/backyard-chickens/ [5] City of Kingston – Urban Hens https://www.cityofkingston.ca/resident/animals-pets/urban-hens [6] City of Mississauga – Animal Services By-laws https://www.mississauga.ca/services-and-programs/animals-and-pets/animal-services/by-laws/

Written by: Sara Santos-Vigneault Date: April 27, 2026 Large infrastructure projects in Canada, including pipelines and energy developments, are often described as being delayed by “red tape.” The phrase is widely used, but it does not refer to a single legal rule or authority. In practice, project timelines are shaped by how the legal system is structured. A project must pass through multiple layers of law, including federal legislation, provincial regulation, constitutional obligations, and judicial oversight. Each layer imposes requirements that must be satisfied before a project can proceed. When these layers operate together, the result is a process that can take many years and may lead to different outcomes, including approval, delay, or cancellation. Federal Legal Framework At the federal level, major projects are governed by the Impact Assessment Act. This legislation requires certain projects to undergo a formal review before approval can be granted. [1] The process is administered by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and may involve other regulators, including the Canada Energy Regulator. [2][3] The assessment must consider environmental, economic, and social effects, including impacts on Indigenous groups. These factors are required by law and form part of the approval decision. Timelines in Law and in Practice The legislation sets out timelines for review. Standard assessments are generally framed at approximately 300 days, while more complex reviews may extend to approximately 600 days. [4] These timelines are often cited in public discussion. However, they apply only to part of the overall process. They do not include earlier stages of project development, pauses during review, or post-approval legal challenges. What the Process Actually Includes A major project typically moves through several stages, many of which fall outside the formal timeline. Pre-Application Work Before entering the formal process, proponents conduct engineering design, environmental studies, and early engagement with affected communities. This stage is required but not captured in statutory timelines and may take several years. Impact Assessment Once submitted, the project undergoes federal review. This includes detailed studies, regulatory analysis, and public participation. Regulators may pause the process to request additional information or revisions. These pauses are permitted within the framework of the legislation. [4] Indigenous Consultation Consultation with Indigenous groups is required under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. [5] This process is ongoing and may involve multiple rounds of engagement, further study, and consideration of project changes. Where consultation is not sufficient, approvals may be set aside. Parallel Approvals Projects must also comply with provincial and municipal laws, including environmental approvals, permits, and local bylaws. These processes operate independently and may affect overall timelines. Judicial Review Regulatory decisions may be challenged in court. Where legal requirements are not met, approvals may be overturned and the process may return to earlier stages. Real-World Examples: Process, Outcomes, and Status Trans Mountain Expansion (Alberta to British Columbia) The Trans Mountain expansion runs from Edmonton, Alberta to Burnaby, British Columbia. 2013: Application filed 2016: Approved 2018: Approval set aside by the Federal Court of Appeal in Tsleil-Waututh Nation v Canada (Attorney General) [6] 2019: Re-approved after further consultation The Court found that consultation and environmental review were not sufficient, requiring parts of the process to be repeated. Status: Completed and entered service in 2024. Outcome: Built, but only after more than a decade and repeated regulatory steps. Energy East Pipeline (Western to Eastern Canada) Energy East was a proposed pipeline connecting Alberta and Saskatchewan to Eastern Canada. 2013: Proposed 2014 to 2017: Under regulatory review Scope expanded to include broader climate impacts 2017: Application withdrawn [7] Status: Not built. Outcome: Cancelled during the regulatory process following expanded requirements. Northern Gateway Pipeline (Alberta to British Columbia Coast) Northern Gateway was proposed to transport oil from Alberta to the northern coast of British Columbia. 2006: Proposed 2014: Approved with conditions 2016: Approval set aside by the Federal Court of Appeal due to inadequate consultation [8] 2016: Project cancelled Status: Not built. Outcome: Approved, overturned by the Court, and ultimately cancelled. Keystone XL Pipeline (Canada to United States) Keystone XL was an international pipeline connecting Alberta to the United States. 2008: Proposed Subject to multiple regulatory reviews and legal challenges 2021: Cancelled Status: Not built. Outcome: Extended regulatory and political process ending in cancellation. Coastal GasLink Pipeline (British Columbia) Coastal GasLink connects northeastern British Columbia to the LNG Canada facility in Kitimat. Mid-2010s: Approvals obtained Late 2010s to 2020s: Construction with legal disputes and enforcement actions Status: Completed in 2023 and operational. [9] Outcome: Built, but with continued legal and operational challenges after approval. Economic Impact of Extended Timelines Extended timelines have economic implications that operate alongside the legal framework. Large infrastructure projects are typically associated with investment, employment, and broader economic activity across multiple sectors. Where timelines extend, project costs may increase due to prolonged development, regulatory compliance, and financing requirements. In some cases, projects may no longer proceed if costs or uncertainty become too significant. These conditions can affect not only large project proponents but also smaller businesses. Participation in major projects often depends on the ability to absorb delays, manage regulatory requirements, and commit resources over extended periods. Where timelines become uncertain or prolonged, smaller businesses may face greater difficulty participating in or benefiting from these projects. The economic effects of delay or cancellation are part of the broader context in which the legal system operates. Conclusion Project development in Canada is shaped by a legal framework that allows for review, reconsideration, and, in some cases, reversal of approval decisions. Federal assessment, constitutional consultation, and judicial oversight all contribute to this structure. The examples discussed demonstrate that projects do not follow a single path. Some are completed after extended timelines, while others are delayed, revised, or discontinued. These outcomes have economic implications. Large projects often involve significant investment and business activity, which may be affected by extended timelines or uncertainty. Where regulatory processes become prolonged or complex, the cost of participation may increase, particularly for smaller businesses with fewer resources. As a result, the legal framework influences not only how projects are approved, but also the conditions under which economic activity connected to those projects occurs. References [1] Impact Assessment Act, SC 2019, c 28 https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.75/ [2] Impact Assessment Agency of Canada https://www.canada.ca/en/impact-assessment-agency.html [3] Canada Energy Regulator Act, SC 2019, c 28 https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-15.1/ [4] Government of Canada, Impact Assessment Process Overview https://www.canada.ca/en/impact-assessment-agency/services/policy-guidance/impact-assessment-process-overview.html [5] Constitution Act, 1982 https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html [6] Tsleil-Waututh Nation v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 153 https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2018/2018fca153/2018fca153.html [7] Canada Energy Regulator, Energy East Archive https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/applications-hearings/view-applications-projects/archive/energy-east/ [8] Gitxaala Nation v Canada, 2016 FCA 187 https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2016/2016fca187/2016fca187.html [9] TC Energy, Coastal GasLink https://www.tcenergy.com/operations/natural-gas/coastal-gaslink/

Written by: Sara Santos-Vigneault Date: April 18, 2026 What Is Floor Crossing in Canada Floor crossing refers to the practice of an elected Member of Parliament (MP) changing political affiliation after being elected. This may involve leaving one political party to join another or choosing to sit as an independent member. Members who cross the floor retain their seat in the House of Commons unless they resign or are otherwise disqualified under applicable law. [1] Legal Status of Members of Parliament In Canada, Members of Parliament are elected to represent their constituencies as individuals, even though they typically run as candidates affiliated with a political party. Once elected, the legal status of an MP does not depend on continued membership in that party. If a Member chooses to leave their party or join another, they retain their seat and continue to represent the same electoral district without requiring a new election. [1][2] This reflects a core feature of Canada’s parliamentary system, in which the seat is held by the individual Member rather than the political party. However, this legal structure has been the subject of significant and ongoing public criticism. Reporting across multiple media outlets has described concerns that voters often cast ballots based on party platforms, leadership, and policy commitments, and that a change in party affiliation after an election may undermine those expectations and alter the representation originally endorsed by voters. [3][4][5] At the same time, there is no legal requirement for a Member who changes affiliation to seek a renewed mandate from voters, and no statutory penalty or automatic consequence tied to such a decision. This gap between the legal structure and voter expectations is one of the central reasons the practice remains controversial. [1][2] Oath of Office and Legal Obligations Before taking a seat and voting in the House of Commons, a duly elected Member must swear or affirm an oath of allegiance. Section 128 of the Constitution Act, 1867 requires Members to take and subscribe the Oath of Allegiance contained in the Fifth Schedule. [6][7] This oath is made to the Crown and is a formal legal requirement for holding office. It does not require a Member to remain affiliated with a political party, nor does it impose a legal obligation to maintain the political position under which the Member was elected. [6][8] Members are also subject to ethics rules , including the Conflict of Interest Act, which require them to avoid conflicts of interest and improper personal gain. However, these rules govern financial and ethical conduct, not political affiliation. There is no legal duty requiring an MP to remain with a party or to follow the platform under which they were elected. [9] As a result, while public discussion often frames floor crossing in terms of trust or representation, the legal obligations imposed on Members of Parliament do not restrict their ability to change political alignment once elected. Why Floor Crossing Is Permitted Floor crossing is permitted in Canada because there is no constitutional or statutory rule prohibiting it. The Constitution Act, 1867 establishes Parliament and its structure but does not require Members to remain with the political party under which they were elected. [6][10] This reflects broader parliamentary principles, including responsible government and the idea that elected representatives act as individual office holders. Political parties are central to parliamentary life, but party affiliation itself is not legally binding. [1][2] Absence of Legislative Restrictions At the federal level, the Canada Elections Act governs how elections are conducted, including candidate nominations, voting, and campaign rules, but it does not regulate what happens if an elected Member later changes party affiliation. [11] Similarly, parliamentary practice does not require a Member to vacate a seat or face a by-election after joining another caucus. A Member who crosses the floor may simply sit with the new party or as an independent. [1] This has led to a recurring public question: why is there no legal rule requiring a fresh vote when the political affiliation under which the Member was elected changes? The answer lies in the structure of Canadian parliamentary law, which treats the seat as belonging to the Member rather than the political party. [1][2] Recent Examples and Public Response Recent floor crossing has brought renewed attention to the issue, particularly because of its direct impact on the balance of power in Parliament. Reporting indicates that a series of defections from opposition parties to the governing Liberals between late 2025 and early 2026 contributed to the government reaching a majority position in the House of Commons. [3] The Members involved in these recent crossings included Chris d’Entremont, Michael Ma, Matt Jeneroux, Lori Idlout, and Marilyn Gladu. These individuals moved from opposition parties, primarily the Conservatives and the New Democratic Party, to join the Liberal caucus over a relatively short period. As a result of these defections, combined with subsequent by-election results, the Liberals reached approximately 174 seats in the House of Commons, forming a majority government during the same parliamentary term without a general election. [3][4][5] Several of the Members publicly explained their decisions: Chris d’Entremont stated that the government’s budget “hits the priorities I have heard most in my riding.” Michael Ma stated that he entered politics “to focus on solutions, not division.” Matt Jeneroux indicated that leadership and policy direction had “opened a lot of eyes.” Marilyn Gladu stated that joining the Liberals was the “best thing” for her riding, the country, and herself. [4][5][12][13] At the same time, these decisions drew strong criticism. Opposition responses described the shift in parliamentary control as inconsistent with the results of the previous election, raising concerns about whether such changes reflect the original mandate given by voters. [3] The controversy has been further heightened by the fact that at least one of the Members involved had previously supported the idea that floor crossing should trigger a by-election , contributing to broader debate about whether the current legal framework aligns with public expectations of accountability. [13] These developments have made floor crossing a more immediate and visible issue. While the legal rules have not changed, the political consequences have become more significant, particularly where changes in party affiliation affect the overall control of government. Compensation, Roles, and Public Discussion Members of Parliament receive a base salary and allowances established by law, and these do not change based solely on party affiliation. However, additional compensation is associated with specific roles, such as cabinet positions, parliamentary secretaries, and committee chairs. [14] When a Member crosses the floor and joins a governing party, their position within Parliament may change. Membership in the government caucus can influence access to committee roles, speaking opportunities, and participation in legislative decision-making. Members may also be considered for additional roles that carry greater responsibility and compensation. [15] Public and Legal Debate Floor crossing continues to generate debate in Canada, particularly in relation to democratic accountability. Critics argue that voters often make their decisions based on party affiliation, and that a change in party after an election may not reflect the choice made at the ballot box. [3][4][5] Recent events have intensified these concerns by demonstrating that floor crossing can influence not only party composition, but the balance of power in Parliament itself. [3] At the same time, others argue that restricting floor crossing could undermine the independence of Members of Parliament. The ability to act independently is considered by some to be an important safeguard within the parliamentary system. [1][2] Constitutional Context The legal framework governing floor crossing in Canada remains unchanged. Members of Parliament continue to hold their seats in an individual capacity, and no statutory mechanism requires a by-election or other formal process when a change in party affiliation occurs. [1][2][11] Within this framework, the Constitution, the oath of allegiance, and federal election law consistently recognize Members of Parliament as independent office holders rather than representatives legally bound to a political party. At the same time, recent developments have highlighted the extent to which this legal structure can intersect with public expectations regarding electoral choice and representation. References [1] The Canadian Encyclopedia – “Floor Crossing” https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/floor-crossing [2] The Canadian Encyclopedia – “Political Party” https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/political-party [3] Reuters – “Canada’s Carney set to win majority government in special elections” (April 2026) https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canadas-carney-set-win-majority-government-special-elections-2026-04-13/ [4] Reuters – “Canadian MP Chris d’Entremont resigns Conservative caucus to join Liberals” (November 2025) https://www.reuters.com/world/canadian-mp-dentremont-resigns-conservative-caucus-ctv-reports-2025-11-04/ [5] Reuters – “Carney on verge of majority after opposition MP defects” (March 2026) https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/carney-verge-majority-canada-parliament-after-opposition-mp-defects-2026-03-11/ [6] Constitution Act, 1867, s. 128 (Oath Requirement) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-4.html [7] Constitution Act, 1867, Fifth Schedule – Oath of Allegiance https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-9.html [8] House of Commons Procedure and Practice – “Oath or Solemn Affirmation of Allegiance” https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure-book-livre/en/document?sbdid=2ae20cbe-e824-466b-b37c-8941bbc99c37 [9] Conflict of Interest Act, S.C. 2006, c. 9, s. 2 https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-36.65/ [10] Constitution Act, 1867 (General Provisions) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-1.html [11] Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9 https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-2.01/ [12] Associated Press – “Canada’s Liberals near majority after another Conservative defection” (2026) https://apnews.com/article/b329dd7806732e9cd84a1283d22eba7c [13] Associated Press – “Carney attracts another Conservative lawmaker to Liberal Party” (2026) https://apnews.com/article/b7a3714898eb6543fa4a80278cac89d2 [14] Parliament of Canada – “Indemnities, Salaries and Allowances” https://lop.parl.ca/sites/ParlInfo/default/en_CA/People/Salaries [15] House of Commons – “Parliamentary Secretaries” https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/parliamentary-secretaries

Written by: Sara Santos-Vigneault Date: March 16, 2026 Background of the War Measures Act The War Measures Act  was enacted by the Parliament of Canada in 1914 , shortly after the outbreak of the First World War. The legislation granted the federal government broad emergency powers during times of “war, invasion, or insurrection, real or apprehended.” These powers allowed the government to govern by decree, censor publications, detain individuals without trial, and control transportation, trade, and property when national security was considered at risk. [1] The Act was used during both World War I and World War II , including during the internment of individuals considered “enemy aliens.” Although originally intended for wartime emergencies, the legislation remained in force throughout the twentieth century and could be invoked by the federal government when it believed national security required extraordinary measures. [2] The October Crisis of 1970 The October Crisis  occurred in October 1970  in the province of Quebec and was connected to the activities of the Front de libération du Québec (FLQ) , a militant separatist organization that sought Quebec’s independence from Canada. On October 5, 1970 , members of the FLQ kidnapped James Cross , the British Trade Commissioner in Montreal. Several days later, on October 10, 1970 , another FLQ cell kidnapped Pierre Laporte , Quebec’s Minister of Labour and Immigration. The kidnappers demanded the release of imprisoned FLQ members and the broadcast of the FLQ manifesto. [3] The kidnappings created a national crisis and raised concerns among government officials about potential insurrection and threats to public safety. Invocation of the War Measures Act In response to the escalating situation, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau  and the federal government invoked the War Measures Act on October 16, 1970 . The decision followed formal requests for assistance from Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa  and Montreal Mayor Jean Drapeau , who stated that additional powers were necessary to address the crisis and maintain public order. [3] Once the Act was invoked, the federal government gained extensive authority to maintain order and address the perceived threat posed by the FLQ. The legislation allowed authorities to prohibit certain organizations, conduct searches without standard warrants, and detain individuals suspected of involvement in illegal activities related to the crisis. Canadian soldiers were also deployed in Quebec to support civil authorities and assist with security operations. Arrests and Government Powers Under the emergency powers granted by the War Measures Act, police forces were permitted to arrest individuals without immediately laying formal charges. During the October Crisis, nearly 500 people were arrested and detained , although most were later released without charges being laid against them. [4] The extraordinary measures were justified by the government as necessary to restore public order and prevent further acts of violence. However, the scope of the arrests and the suspension of normal legal protections generated significant debate about the balance between national security and civil liberties. The crisis escalated further when Pierre Laporte was killed by members of the FLQ on October 17, 1970. The death intensified public concern and reinforced the government’s position that strong measures were required to address the situation. [3] Public Debate and Criticism The invocation of the War Measures Act during the October Crisis remains one of the most debated decisions in modern Canadian political history. Supporters of the government’s decision argued that the emergency powers were necessary to restore order during a period of instability and violence. They maintained that the kidnappings and threats made by the FLQ created a situation requiring rapid and decisive action. Critics, however, argued that the government’s response granted sweeping powers to law enforcement and resulted in the detention of individuals who were never formally charged with crimes. Civil liberties organizations and legal scholars have continued to examine whether the use of such extensive powers was justified given the circumstances of the crisis. [5] During the crisis, a widely remembered exchange between Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau  and reporters captured the intensity of the public debate. When asked how far the government was willing to go in restricting civil liberties to respond to the situation, Trudeau replied, “Well, just watch me.”  The remark, delivered outside Parliament in October 1970, became one of the most frequently cited statements associated with the October Crisis. The exchange reflected the broader national debate about the balance between public security and civil liberties following the invocation of the War Measures Act. Historical Legacy The October Crisis and the use of the War Measures Act had lasting effects on Canadian law and public policy. In later years, concerns about the breadth of the Act’s powers led Parliament to reconsider how emergency authority should operate within a democratic society. In 1988, the War Measures Act was repealed and replaced by the Emergencies Act, which introduced clearer limits on government authority and required parliamentary oversight when emergency powers are invoked. [6] The events of October 1970 continue to be studied as an example of how governments respond to national security threats and how democratic societies attempt to balance public safety with the protection of civil liberties. References [1] The Canadian Encyclopedia – War Measures Act https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/war-measures-act [2] Library and Archives Canada – War Measures Act https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/military-heritage/first-world-war/Pages/war-measures-act.aspx [3] The Canadian Encyclopedia – October Crisis https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/october-crisis [4] CBC News – October Crisis Explained https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/october-crisis-1970-explained-1.5755807 [5] Canadian Civil Liberties Association – The October Crisis and Civil Liberties https://ccla.org/major-cases/october-crisis-civil-liberties/ [6] Department of Justice Canada – Emergencies Act https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-4.5/

Written by: Sara Santos-Vigneault Date: March 16, 2026 Overview of the Proposed Legislation In February 2024 , the Government of Canada introduced Bill C-63 , commonly referred to as the Online Harms Act , as proposed legislation intended to regulate certain forms of harmful content on digital platforms. The government stated that the bill aimed to make online environments safer, particularly for children, and to impose legal responsibilities on large social media platforms that host user-generated content. [1] The bill was formally introduced in the House of Commons on February 26, 2024 , during the 44th Parliament of Canada . Following first reading and early debate, the legislation was referred to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights  for further study and public testimony. Throughout 2024, the committee heard from civil liberties organizations, legal scholars, technology experts, and advocacy groups regarding the potential impacts of the proposal. [2] However, the bill did not complete the parliamentary process . When Parliament was prorogued on January 6, 2025 , all unfinished legislation, including Bill C-63, died on the Order Paper . As a result, the proposed Online Harms Act did not become law . [3] Although the legislation was never enacted, the proposal remains significant because it illustrates how the federal government has attempted to address harmful online content and regulate the responsibilities of digital platforms. The debates surrounding Bill C-63 also continue to influence discussions about future online safety legislation in Canada. Legislative Background Bill C-63 proposed creating a new federal statute called the Online Harms Act , alongside amendments to existing legislation including the Criminal Code  and the Canadian Human Rights Act . [4] The proposed framework focused primarily on online services that host user-generated content , including major social media platforms. Under the bill, these platforms would have been required to take steps to address certain categories of harmful material appearing on their services. The legislation identified several types of online harm that could trigger regulatory obligations: • content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes survivors • non-consensual sharing of intimate images • content that incites violence• material encouraging self-harm • certain forms of hate speech Rather than regulating all forms of online expression, the bill targeted specific categories of harmful content that Parliament considered to present serious risks to individuals and public safety. [1] Proposed Regulatory Institutions The legislation proposed establishing a new federal regulatory system responsible for overseeing compliance by digital platforms. Digital Safety Commission The Digital Safety Commission of Canada  would have served as the primary regulator responsible for enforcing the Online Harms Act. The Commission would have had authority to investigate complaints, issue compliance orders, and impose administrative monetary penalties on platforms that failed to comply with their legal obligations. [1] Digital Safety Ombudsperson The proposed Digital Safety Ombudsperson  would have assisted individuals reporting harmful online content and provided guidance about complaint procedures and regulatory processes. Digital Safety Office The Digital Safety Office  would have supported the administrative functions of the regulatory framework and assisted the Commission in implementing enforcement measures. Together, these institutions would have formed the central enforcement structure for the proposed legislation. Amendments to Existing Federal Laws In addition to creating a new regulatory statute, Bill C-63 proposed amendments to several existing federal laws. One set of amendments concerned the Criminal Code , including new legal tools addressing hate-motivated conduct and provisions allowing courts to impose peace bonds where a person feared that another individual might commit a hate propaganda offence. [5] The bill also proposed amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act allowing complaints related to online hate speech to be brought before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. This aspect of the proposal attracted attention because Parliament had previously repealed section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act in 2013 , which had addressed hate messages communicated through telecommunications systems. Critics of the earlier provision had argued that it raised concerns about freedom of expression and procedural fairness in human rights proceedings. [6] Civil Liberties and Academic Criticism Bill C-63 generated substantial debate among legal scholars, civil liberties organizations, and policy commentators. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA)  stated that although protecting individuals from online harm is an important policy objective, the legislation required significant amendment to ensure that it respected the constitutional protection of freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . The organization warned that some provisions of the bill were broadly framed and could risk limiting lawful speech if not carefully defined. [7] Legal scholars specializing in digital policy also raised concerns about aspects of the bill. Michael Geist , a law professor at the University of Ottawa and a widely cited commentator on Canadian technology law, argued that the provisions amending the Criminal Code  and the Canadian Human Rights Act  should be removed from the legislation. Geist wrote that combining multiple forms of speech regulation within a single bill created serious civil liberties concerns and risked expanding government authority over lawful expression online. [8] Supporters of stronger online regulation, however, argued that digital platforms should bear greater responsibility for harmful content distributed through their services. Advocacy groups focused on online safety emphasized the need for more effective responses to material involving child sexual exploitation, non-consensual image sharing, and severe online harassment. Constitutional Context The debate surrounding Bill C-63 frequently focused on the relationship between online content regulation and freedom of expression . Freedom of expression is protected under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , which guarantees the right to express opinions, ideas, and information. However, the Charter also permits governments to impose limits on rights where those limits are demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under section 1 . [9] Canadian courts have previously examined the constitutionality of hate speech restrictions. In Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11 , the Supreme Court of Canada upheld certain restrictions on hate speech contained in provincial human rights legislation while emphasizing that legal definitions must remain carefully limited to avoid restricting lawful expression. [10] Because Bill C-63 did not become law, its provisions were never tested in court. However, many commentators anticipated that aspects of the legislation could face constitutional challenges if enacted. Current Status Bill C-63 represented one of the most comprehensive attempts by the federal government to regulate harmful online content and establish responsibilities for digital platforms operating in Canada. Introduced in February 2024, the proposed Online Harms Act would have created new regulatory institutions, imposed obligations on online platforms, and amended existing federal laws addressing hate speech and online conduct. The bill did not pass Parliament and died on the Order Paper in January 2025 when Parliament was prorogued. Although it never became law, the debates surrounding Bill C-63 continue to shape discussions about how Canada may regulate harmful online content while maintaining constitutional protections for freedom of expression. References [1] Government of Canada – Addressing Harmful Online Content https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/online-harms.html [2] House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights https://www.ourcommons.ca/committees/en/JUST [3] Parliament of Canada – Bill C-63 (Online Harms Act) Legislative Information https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-63 [4] Department of Justice Canada – Charter Statement for Bill C-63 https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/c63.html [5] Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/ [6] Canadian Human Rights Act, RSC 1985, c H-6 https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/ [7] Canadian Civil Liberties Association – Commentary on the Online Harms Act https://ccla.org/press-release/ccla-urges-substantial-amendments-to-the-online-harms-act/ [8] Michael Geist – Analysis of Bill C-63 https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2024/02/why-the-criminal-code-and-human-rights-act-provisions-should-be-removed-from-the-online-harms-act/ [9] Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-12.html [10] Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11 https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc11/2013scc11.html

Written by:  Sara Santos-Vigneault Date:  March 9, 2026 Photo by Clem Onojeghuo  on Unsplash Introduction Private investigators are often misunderstood. Popular culture tends to portray them as shadowy figures conducting secret surveillance, but in reality, Private investigators in Ontario are regulated and licensed within a defined legal framework. [1][2] In legal and administrative proceedings, private investigators may be used to document facts, verify information, or locate individuals where reliable evidence is required. Their role is not to determine outcomes or replace the court process, but to collect information in a lawful and structured way . [1][2] What Is a Private Investigator in Ontario? In Ontario, private investigators are licensed under the Private Security and Investigative Services Act, 2005  (“PSISA”). The PSISA governs private investigators, security guards, and agencies that sell these services. [1] Ontario’s licensing framework includes requirements relating to eligibility, mandatory training, testing, and ongoing compliance. Public licensing information is provided by the province through Ontario.ca . [2][3][4] Private investigators are not law enforcement officers . They do not have police powers, cannot compel cooperation, and cannot expand their authority by virtue of being hired. Their work is limited to lawful observation, documentation, and fact-gathering. [1][2] Who Can Hire a Private Investigator? Private investigators may be retained by individuals and organizations for lawful purposes. This may include: Private individuals Businesses and employers Insurance companies Lawyers Licensed paralegals acting for clients Ontario also regulates agencies  that sell private investigator services, which must meet separate licensing requirements. [1][2] Common Situations Where Private Investigators Are Used Private investigators may be used in a variety of contexts where facts need to be documented or verified, such as: Verifying residence or living arrangements Documenting patterns of conduct observable from lawful public locations Employment or workplace investigations Insurance claim investigations Locating individuals for legal or administrative purposes In these contexts, investigators are generally engaged to verify or document facts , not to decide legal responsibility. [1][2] Photo by JESHOOTS.COM  on Unsplash Use of Private Investigators in Legal Proceedings Information gathered by a private investigator may be used in court or tribunal proceedings depending on relevance and how it was obtained. Investigators may provide: Written reports Photographs or video taken from lawful locations Testimony based on personal observations Courts and tribunals assess investigative evidence as they do other evidence: by considering relevance, reliability, and whether it was obtained lawfully. [1][2] Legal Limits on Private Investigations Private investigators must operate within legal boundaries. A private investigator does not  have authority to do something unlawful “because it’s an investigation.” [1][2] Examples of important limits include: No trespassing:  entering onto private property without lawful permission can violate Ontario’s Trespass to Property Act . [7] No impersonation of police or officials:  falsely representing oneself as a peace officer or public officer is an offence under the Criminal Code . [5] No harassment or intimidation:  conduct that meets the legal definition of criminal harassment may engage the Criminal Code . [6] Evidence obtained unlawfully may be challenged, and unlawful conduct can expose the investigator (and potentially others) to legal consequences. [1][2][5][6][7] Investigative Evidence Before Courts and Tribunals Investigative evidence is not automatically decisive. Even where an investigation is properly conducted, the weight given to that evidence depends on the full context of the case. Tribunals may consider investigative evidence where relevant. For example, the Landlord and Tenant Board  and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario  publish public information about their processes and proceedings. [8][9] The presence of investigative evidence does not guarantee any particular outcome. Investigations as Part of a Broader Process Private investigations are only one tool used in legal and administrative processes. They do not replace disclosure obligations, witness testimony, or adjudication by a court or tribunal. Where used, investigative information forms part of a broader evidentiary record and may be accepted, rejected, or given limited weight depending on the issues and the proceeding. Conclusion Private investigators in Ontario operate within a regulated legal framework and are used in specific circumstances where factual information needs to be documented or verified. Their role is limited, structured, and governed by law. [1][2] When used lawfully, investigative evidence may assist courts and tribunals in understanding the facts in dispute, but outcomes ultimately depend on the full record and the legal principles applied to it. References [1]   Private Security and Investigative Services Act, 2005 , S.O. 2005, c. 34 https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/05p34   [2]  Government of Ontario. Private security and investigative services https://www.ontario.ca/page/private-security-and-investigative-services   [3]  Government of Ontario. Security guard or private investigator licence (individuals) https://www.ontario.ca/page/security-guard-or-private-investigator-licence-individuals   [4]  O. Reg. 26/10, Training and Testing  (under the PSISA) https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/100026   [5]   Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 130 (Personating peace officer) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-130.html   [6]   Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 264 (Criminal harassment) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-264.html   [7]   Trespass to Property Act , R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21 https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90t21   [8]  Tribunals Ontario. Landlord and Tenant Board https://tribunalsontario.ca/ltb/   [9]  Social Justice Tribunals Ontario. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario http:// www.sjto.gov.on.ca/hrto/