University of Alberta Faculty of Law Blog

Ohpikihawasowin (the raising of children)

Tansi Nîtôtemtik,

    Today we continue with the topic of Indigenous child welfare, and current challenges for Indigenous children, families, and communities that are involved in the child welfare system. To reiterate the numbers - roughly 70% of children in care in Alberta are Indigenous; however, they make up only 10% of the children living within Alberta.¹

    As was discussed yesterday, if a child is in need of intervention, decisions must be made in the “best interests of the child.” This test is outlined in the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act, section 2, “Matters to be Considered.” This is the relevant legislation with respect to child intervention and protection in Alberta. The child’s Indigenous culture is one of the sixteen matters to be considered in this section. Another matter to be considered pursuant to section 2(a) is “the family is the basic unit of society and its well-being should be supported and preserved.” I suggest by supporting Indigenous families and communities in becoming healthy, we move towards meeting the best interests of the child, and ultimately the goal of reconciliation.

    In today’s post, we look to specific Indigenous supports that are currently set up by and for Indigenous people to help address the challenges that result in this overrepresentation, with a view towards bringing our children home:

    Bachelor of Indigenous Social Work (BISW) degrees are offered at a handful of schools across Canada. For example, the University of Regina’s BISW is a four-year undergraduate degree program offered through the School of Indigenous Social Work at the First Nations University of Canada. “Programs in Indigenous Social Work provide specialized training for social workers who plan to work in Aboriginal communities, taking into consideration Indigenous knowledge, values and cultures.”² This program is also now offered at Maskwacis Cultural College, which is located approximately one hour south of Edmonton.

    Various organizations and programs are in place for children and families that are sensitive to Indigenous culture. The Bent Arrow Healing Society offers a variety of programs for Edmonton’s urban Indigenous population, with the mission statement to “build on the strengths of Aboriginal children, youth, and their families to enable them to develop spiritually, emotionally, physically, and mentally so they can walk proudly in both the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities.”³ The Ben Calf Robe Society, named after a Blackfoot elder and residential school survivor, also offers Indigenous oriented supports and programs. Some of these programs include: Ketotayminawok (focused on in-home family support), and Kichi Awasisak (family health and parenting).⁴ The Canadian Native Friendship Centre offers supports for Indigenous children in care, where they can learn traditional dancing, the Cree language, and traditional arts & crafts.⁵ The Métis Child and Family Services Society is also a support worth noting, focusing on the health and well-being of Métis families and communities.⁶

    Delivery of child intervention services on-Reserve is done through one of seventeen Delegated First Nation Agencies (DFNA) within Alberta.⁷ These Agencies receive their authority through a tripartite agreement involving: (i) the First Nations Agency, who delivers the services; (ii) the Federal government, who provides the funding; and, (iii) the Province, who delegates the legal authority to provide child intervention services to the Agency. The DFNAs provide intervention services within the geographical boundary of that specific Reserve. As an Indigenous blogger, I truly believe the DFNAs are in place to protect their children in care and support their families. They affirm Indigenous children’s beliefs and birthrights, as well as strive to preserve and protect their treaty rights, customs, traditions, language and heritage within their own home communities.

    There’s no such thing as a perfect system, but these Indigenous-led initiatives are trying to make it better for Indigenous children and their families by being culturally sensitive and empathetic in light of the distinct nature of Indigenous child welfare. 

 

Until next time,

Team ReconciliAction YEG

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[1] Auditor General of Alberta, Report of the Auditor General of Alberta: Human Services Systems to Deliver Child and Family Services to Indigenous Children in Alberta (July 2016) at 2 [2016 AG Report].

[2] University of Regina, Faculty of Social Work (Regina: University of Regina, 2017), online: <https://www.uregina.ca/socialwork/programs/>.

[3] Bent Arrow Traditional Healing Society, Home (Edmonton: Bent Arrow Traditional Healing Society, 2017), online: <http://bentarrow.ca>.

[4] Ben Calf Robe Society, Home (Edmonton: Ben Calf Robe Society, 2017), online: <http://bcrsociety.ab.ca>.

[5] The Canadian Native Friendship Centre, Canadian Native Friendship Centre Programs (Edmonton: The Canadian Native Friendship Centre, 2017), online: <http://www.cnfc.ca/aboriginal-programs-edmonton-native-centre>.

[6] Metis Child and Family Services Society, Home (Edmonton: Metis Child and Family Services Society, 2017), online: <http://www.metischild.com/Site_2/Home.html>.

[7] Government of Alberta, Delegated First Nation Agencies (Alberta: Government of Alberta, 2014), online: <http://www.humanservices.alberta.ca/family-community/15540.html>.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Join the conversation by following us on Twitter: @ReconciliYEG; Facebook: www.facebook.com/reconciliActionYEG/; and Instagram: @reconciliactionyeg.

To receive daily alerts to our blog, email the words "add me" to reconciliactionyeg@gmail.com

 

Intergenerational Injustice & Indigenous Child Welfare

“Above all else, the legacy of Canadian government intervention in the lives of Aboriginal children has been one of loss. The most public of these losses have been the absolute losses: those Aboriginal children who have died while in government care. However, as government policies shift to an increasing emphasis on keeping Aboriginal children in Aboriginal families, and as community control over children's services increases, there have been some equally public deaths of Aboriginal children in the care of Aboriginal families or Aboriginal agencies, with accompanying losses of a less permanent and public kind.”[1]

Tansi Nîtôtemtik,

        It is not difficult to see the cumulative effect that the residential school system and the Sixties Scoop have had on generations of Indigenous families. However, in this country’s current system of child welfare, all of its partners are implicated in allowing harm to come to Indigenous children.

        Three main partners are engaged in the delivery of services to Indigenous children in Alberta: Delegated First Nations Agencies (DFNAs), the provincial government, and the federal government. DFNAs are independently run but generally funded by the federal government. Funding for children on reserves also comes from the federal government (albeit, in a manner proven to be discriminatory and chronically lacking when compared to funding for children living off reserve).[2] Finally, the provincial government is financially responsible for all children in the province, but not for children on reserves.

        The Department of Human Services (DHS) is one of these partners. Although providing services for Indigenous children is only part of its mandate, First Nations, Metis, and Inuit children are “overrepresented in the system by a factor of seven.”[3] This means that approximately 70% of children and youth in care in Alberta are Indigenous, a percentage even more shocking when considered in light of the fact that only 10% of the children living in Alberta are Indigenous.[4] The following chart is useful in understanding the average number of Indigenous children who are part of the child welfare system in Alberta every month:[5]

These numbers are too high. In fact, over 3x more Indigenous children are in the care of DFNAs and provincial agencies now than were in residential schools at the height of their operation.[6] How is this possible?

        Answering this question brings us back to the concept of the ‘best interests of the child’ introduced last week. Moving out of the context of the Sixties Scoop, and into contemporary judicial and legislative use of the term in today’s courtrooms, the best interests of the child test continues to be interpreted and applied in often problematic ways. In Alberta, custody of a child is governed by the definition of a child’s best interests provided in the Family Law Act. Section 18(2) outlines a list of 21 factors to be considered as a part of this test.

        Often, when it comes to the custody of Indigenous children, priority is given to one or another of these factors (for example, culture or safety) in ways that fail the child involved. Critiques of related case law provide additional reason for the test to be applied cautiously; decision-makers often collapse race and Indigeneity into a single consideration in a way that erases and ignores crucial distinctions between the experiences of Indigenous and other racialized peoples in this country.

        It is clear that even in its modern manifestations, the best interests of the child test is failing Indigenous children. We can and need to do better, but how? A potential step is to consider additional factors that are obviously relevant in the context of Indigenous children, for example:

• the historical and social context of Indigenous child welfare (think residential schools and the Sixties Scoop);
• racism;
• community survival (courts have overlooked what happens to a community when its children are apprehended en masse);
• poverty; and
• community traumatization (contributed to by issues such as lateral violence).[7]

Perhaps if these elements of intergenerational injustice were factored into the test, Indigenous children might not constitute over 70% of the children in care in this province. Perhaps if we stop placing financial concerns and political statements ahead of their interests, Indigenous children might not be the ones made to suffer. With all that is stake, isn't it worth a try?

        Our posts this week will focus on contemporary challenges in Indigenous child welfare. Tomorrow, we explore examples of Indigenous-led child welfare initiatives in Alberta. On Wednesday, we discuss Jordan’s Principle and what happens when governments engage in jurisdictional battles of ‘It’s not our problem.’ On Thursday, we examine Cindy Blackstock’s tireless advocacy on behalf of Indigenous children. Don’t miss out!

Until next time,

Team ReconciliAction YEG

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[1] Hadley Friedland, “Tragic Choices and the Division of Sorrow: Speaking About Race, Culture, and Community Traumatization in the Lives of Children” (2009) Can Journal of Family Law 25 at 224-225.

[2] See First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (for the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada), 2016 CHRT 2.

[3] Auditor General of Alberta, Report of the Auditor General of Alberta: Human Services Systems to Deliver Child and Family Services to Indigenous Children in Alberta (July 2016) at 2 [2016 AG Report].

[4] See Department of Human Services, Child Intervention Information and Statistics Summary 2015-2016 4th Quarter (March) Update.

[5] 2016 AG Report, supra note 3 at 11.

[6] John Borrows and Leonard Rotman, Aboriginal Legal Issues: Cases Materials & Commentary (Markham: LexisNexis, 2012) at 888.

[7] See Friedland, supra note 1 at 245.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Join the conversation by following us on Twitter: @ReconciliYEG; Facebook: www.facebook.com/reconciliActionYEG/; and Instagram: @reconciliactionyeg.

To receive daily alerts to our blog, email the words "add me" to reconciliactionyeg@gmail.com.

Part I: Sixties Scoop

^{Retrieved from: http://www.ammsa.com/publications/ontario-birchbark/sixties-scoop-rally-takes-toronto-streets}

Tansi Nîtôtemtik,

        Although the Sixties Scoop is a chapter of Canada’s dark history, many Canadians are unaware of the child welfare policy that continued the country’s assimilation of Indigenous children. So, what is the Sixties Scoop, and why should we as Canadians care about a child welfare policy from the 60s? I’m sure we’re all familiar with those ignorant comments posted in the latest news story on Indigenous issues: “this happened so long ago, who cares? Get over it.” To answer simply, we care – and you should too. For those willing to listen, we continue to explore the Sixties Scoop of Indigenous children, and its continuing legacy within the child welfare system of today.

        Let’s start with the term: “Sixties Scoop.” In 1983, Patrick Johnson, a researcher for the Canadian Council on Social Development, first presented the term, “Sixties Scoop” in a report that explored the mass apprehension of Indigenous children from their homes and communities and into the child welfare system during the 60s. The phrase was based on prior comments of a child-protection worker who wrote social workers “would literally scoop the children from reserves on the slightest pretext.” ¹

        This “scoop” of Indigenous children into child welfare resulted in an issue of overrepresentation within the system. The TRC’s summary of the final report gives further insight into this overrepresentation: “In 1977, Aboriginal children accounted for 44% of the children in care in Alberta, 51% of the children in care in Saskatchewan, and 60% of the children in care in Manitoba.” ² In terms of sheer number, the Canadian Press estimated 20,000 children were taken from their homes from the 1960s to the 1980s and were adopted by non-Aboriginal middle-class families.³

        The mass number of Indigenous children entering the child welfare system were oftentimes removed from their homes because proper care was based on middle-class Euro-Canadian values. Social workers did not have specific training for Indigenous communities and children, and thus were not familiar with their unique cultures and history. “For example, when social workers entered the homes of families subsisting on a traditional Aboriginal diet of dried game, fish, and berries, and didn’t see fridges or cupboards stocked in typical Euro-Canadian fashion, they assumed that the adults in the home were not providing for their children.” ⁴ In addition, social problems within the reserve communities, such as poverty, unemployment, and addiction (many of which were directly linked to the abuses and neglect of the residential school system) led the social workers to believe they needed to “protect” the children. Many poverty-stricken families, that otherwise provided caring homes, watched as their children were taken from them with little-to-no warning and no consent.⁵

        The foster parents that the children were then placed with were never given information on the children’s heritage, culture, Indian status, or the benefits they were entitled to receive with such status. Children lost contact with their birth families, were often split up from their siblings, and suffered a vast disconnect from their culture, language, and identity. This loss of Indigenous identity following the Sixties Scoop resulted in high suicide rates, unemployment, substance abuse and mental disorders as these children aged into adulthood.⁶

        Tomorrow’s post will give you a closer look at the personal impacts of the Sixties Scoop on the children apprehended during this epidemic, and the effects of this policy on their lives today. Although the Sixties Scoop is a part of Canada’s history, we begin to understand that what has happened in the past, continues to live on into our present.

Until next time,

Team ReconciliAction YEG

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[1] Rachel Shabalin, “The "Sixties Scoop": A Dark Chapter in Canadian History” (2017) 41:4 Lawnow 1 at 2.

[2] Truth and Reconciliation Canada, Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (Winnipeg: Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada), 2017, at page 72.

[3] Michael Ireland, “60s ‘Scoop kids’ bear emotional scars and want apology” (2014) 34:6 Indian Life at 1.

[4] Erin Hanson, Sixties Scoop (BC: First Nations Studies Program, 2009), online: Indigenous Foundations  <http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/sixties_scoop/>.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Shabalin, supra note 1.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Join the conversation by following us on Twitter: @ReconciliYEG; Facebook: www.facebook.com/reconciliActionYEG/; and Instagram: @reconciliactionyeg.

To receive daily alerts to our blog, email the words "add me" to reconciliactionyeg@gmail.com.

Interview with Provincial Court's Judge Judith Shriar

Today we expand on our Access-to-Justice themed week, with a discussion on Alberta’s court system. Today’s post emphasizes the role that the courts play in helping litigants navigate the legal process once they’ve been introduced to the system. When courts give better access to self-represented litigants, more people can afford to pursue a claim or defend a claim or charge before a judge.

We recently had the opportunity to interview the Honourable Judge Judith Shriar of the Provincial Court of Alberta. She sits in Calgary, as well as in regional areas near the city, on criminal and some civil matters.

Through her time on the bench, Judge Shriar has heard a variety of charges, litigants, and issues, though she noted that she hears a large number of drinking and driving related charges. Judge Shriar observed that men appear in her courtroom more often than women and she sees more younger defendants than older. She made special note that these demographics do not change drastically from urban to rural, or even reserve centres.

In our justice system, there is currently cause for concern for self-represented litigants to represent themselves in court. Judge Shriar noted that courts have implemented programs and resources to help litigants navigate the murky waters of the legal system. The Provincial Court has “done a great job of making tools available online for litigants to access,” Shriar said.  

She further recognized that these resources have allowed self-represented litigants to become better equipped to handle their cases in court.

“I do think that people often do a good job on their own. Especially when people are unrepresented you see that people have really thought through their claim… they’re organized.”

However, there are always those who “slip through the cracks.” Sometimes a self-represented litigant faces an uphill battle during a dispute against a litigant with an experienced lawyer. When asked whether the judiciary has a responsibility to ensure that litigants are on equal playing fields, Judge Shriar confirmed that, though her jurisdiction to intervene is limited, she does what is appropriate within her position as an impartial judge to make litigants aware of the resources available to them, and even to step in when necessary to prevent gross injustices.

Another common area of concern is an increasing strain on limited court resources. Judge Shriar agrees that with respect to both manpower and infrastructure, the scarcity of court resources is an issue. In light of this problem Judge Shriar explained how Calgary’s Provincial Court has implemented programming to combat and mitigate the effects of diminishing resources.

She called Calgary’s Provincial Court a “leader across the province and the country,” when dealing with diminishing resources. For example, to deal with small overburdened rural courtrooms, regional dispositions are sometimes moved to Calgary. Setting aside a day for this purpose has helped to save time and effectively utilize the resources currently in place.

Another example is the Provincial Court's use of technology. For example, the court’s use of CCTV has reduced the need to transport parties and witnesses to courts. This eases the burden on support staff like sheriffs, clerks, and drivers.

When asked about the future of the courts and litigants’ ability to access and navigate them, Judge Shriar is optimistic. Since she was called to the bench, she has noticed many changes that increase both the efficiency of the court system and assist the courts in reaching appropriate verdicts. Specifically, technology and alternative dispute mechanisms have alleviated some of the pressures on the court system, while providing litigants with appropriate tools in which to solve their dispute.

However, more can be done.

We asked Judge Shriar what next steps the courts might take to continue to solve some of the issues individuals face when accessing the justice system. She said that, “the delay issue is critical. There were 15 charges dropped in Edmonton by a crown prosecutor to address these delay issues.”

“The courts do have a role to play in the process of helping to address root causes,” she said, and accordingly, we are likely to see an increase in “therapeutic courts, matrimonial courts, drug courts, and experimental programs.”

These measures will continue to funnel litigants out of the courtrooms while still providing them with the appropriate oversight. Solving disputes before trial, through programs such as mediation or judicial dispute resolution, saves both litigants and the courts time and money.

The Canadian justice system faces obstacles and challenges to provide fair and affordable access to its resources. It is clear at this point that Calgary’s Provincial Court has taken significant steps forward, leading Canada’s courts toward a future with a more accessible and balanced system of litigation and dispute resolution.

Interview: Student Legal Services' Executive Coordinator, Neil Thomson

Today, we explore a unique, local resource that facilitates access to justice.  We met with Student Legal Services of Edmonton's Executive Coordinator, Neil Thomson, to find out more about the organization, what they do, and hear about just how much work they do by the numbers.

 

 

Someday We'll Find It, The Rainbow Connection

It is important to identify that none of the contributors to The Dominion self-identify as members of the LGBT community. We recognize that, today, we are writing about things that we haven't personally experienced and that our ability to competently write on this issue is limited. We also recognize that the abbreviation “LGBT” is considered by many to be incomplete. We have chosen to err on the side of simplicity and familiarity. It is not our intent to offend. We apologize for any shortcomings that appear below.

 

One might assume that LGBT rights in Canada were worse the further one delves back into our history. This would be incorrect. While LGBT rights in 1867 were nowhere near what they are today, it's important to note that things actually got a lot worse before they got better.

In 1867, there were “buggery” laws on the books,¹ and this crime was punishable by death in British North America. As abhorrent as this is, these were inherited laws from Great Britain and officials on this side of the pond simply didn't see fit to impose the punishment. While there were many people sentenced to death for this “crime,” there are no records of this sentence being carried out. Instead, the convicted were pardoned or had their sentences commuted.

As unjust as this position was, in 1948 the Criminal Code was amended to label gay men as “criminal sexual psychopaths”, as well as to provide for indeterminate prison sentences.² In the 1950s and 1960s, a pseudoscientific device known as the “fruit machine” was employed to identify gay men.  These men were deemed to be ineligible for government jobs, including the Canadian Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.³ This signified a low point for LGBT rights in Canada.

In 1968, Minister of Justice John Turner introduced The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69, an omnibus bill that decriminalized homosexuality.⁴ His predecessor, Pierre Trudeau, who had introduced an earlier version of the Bill, famously commented that “there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation”.

Of course, mere decriminalization was insufficient, and systemic discrimination against LGBT people was still a problem. It still is, but things have started to get better. The advent of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms⁵ in 1982 brought forth important protection against discrimination for segments of the population that were identified as minority groups.⁶ Sexual orientation was NOT included.

It was not until 1995⁷ that the Supreme Court of Canada “read-in” sexual orientation to s. 15 of the Charter. In 1998⁸ the Court went a step further and ensured that provincial human rights statutes needed to be interpreted as if sexual orientation was deemed to be a prohibited ground for discrimination. This was held to be so, regardless of the intention of the provincial governments when crafting their legislation. The next year, the Court ruled on the landmark case M. v. H.⁹ allowing for same sex marriage in Canada, later resulting in the federal Civil Marriage Act¹⁰ which codified this right.

While these measures have undoubtedly improved life for gay, lesbian, and bisexual people the battle for equality has just begun for those with non-traditional gender expressions and identities. An Act to Amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code is currently before Parliament to add protections from discrimination on these grounds.¹¹

Legislation is not enough. The systemic discrimination that has resulted in unfair treatment to these minority groups are not going to disappear by the mere stroke of a pen. While good law is indeed necessary, it is not sufficient.

To those of our readers in law school, legal professions, politics, and others who occupy positions of power or are going to in the future, consider this a call to arms. If our country is going to keep advancing against intolerance, we need to help lead the charge. We must decide how we are to use the influence that will invariably be entrusted to us, and we must do so fearlessly.

Intolerance and hate have dominated for far too long. For what it's worth, we're choosing love. We hope that you'll join us.

 

¹ Consolidated Statutes of Canada 1859, c 91, s 22.
² RSC 1927, c 36.
³ Gary W Kinsman, Dieter K Buse & Mercedes Steedman, Whose National Security?: Canadian State Surveillance and the Creation of Enemies (Canada: Between the Lines, 2000).
⁴ SC 1968-69, c 38.
⁵ Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act (UK), 1982, c 11 [Charter].
⁶ Ibid at s 15.
⁷ Egan v Canada, [1995] 2 SCR 513.
⁸ Vriend v Alberta, [1998] 1 SCR 493.
⁹ [1999] 2 SCR 3.
¹⁰ SC 2005, c 33.
¹¹ Bill C-16, An Act to Amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, 1st Sess, 42nd Parl, 2016.

Should the State Criminalize Family Choices?

Canada is known as a country of immigrants and prides itself on its multicultural heritage.  When immigrants migrate to this country they bring with them many unique beliefs, customs and traditions. Polygamy is a custom practiced overseas, but has been outlawed in Canada since the 1800’s. The practice recently made its way into mainstream media and the courts. In addition to some immigrants who bring polygamist practices from their home countries, members of a Mormon community in British Columbia have also been featured in the media. Two of their main members have recently been charged with polygamy and other criminal offences. Coverage of immigrant cases and the British Columbia charges has created a very interesting Charter question. If polygamy is part of a particular religion, do these laws violate section 2(a) of the Charter?

Background to Polygamist Laws in Canada

Polygamy has been a criminal offence in Canada since 1892 under the Criminal Code.¹ Polygamy is currently illegal under s. 293 of the Criminal Code. The law criminalizes any marital union exceeding two people, and also criminalizes celebrating or assisting these unions.² In addition, the common law has long considered marriage “as the voluntary union… of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.”³ The common law definition of marriage evolved with the recognition of same-sex marriage throughout Canada.⁴ However, the underlying principle of marriage being a union between two people still remains and is recognized in section 2 of the Civil Marriage Act.⁵

Practicing Polygamy

Little research exists to determine the number of polygamous unions in Canada. In Ontario, polygamist marriages that are validly entered into in a person’s home country may be granted legal recognition.⁶ While polygamy is federally outlawed, the Ontario Family Law Act has allowed for this minor exception for immigrant families under s. 1(2).⁷ The province likely implemented this legislation to allow polygamous families to remain united when coming to Canada. Without this protection, only one spouse would be granted legal marriage rights upon immigration to Canada, creating a problematic family structure for individuals who have always lived this way. Some research suggests that there are a few polygamist families who have sought immigration to Ontario for this reason. Others have had to seek immigration with only one recognized spouse, because polygamous marriages are not recognized or legally protected in other provinces.⁸

The most renowned practicing polygamist group in Canada is a community of Fundamental Mormons residing in Bountiful, British Columbia.⁹ Recently, two members of this group were charged with polygamy and human trafficking of under-aged members of the religious community.¹⁰ For the polygamy charges there is a possibility that the men may make Charter claims that Canada’s polygamy laws are unconstitutional. If this happens, changes to the Civil Marriage Act and Criminal Code may also be required.  

Charter Issues

The main question arising is whether Canada’s polygamy laws violate s. 2(a) of the Charter. Under s. 2(a) individuals are guaranteed the right to freedom of religion.¹¹ If polygamy is part of a religious tradition, it is possible for these groups to argue the Civil Marriage Act and Criminal Code are discriminatory based on their religious beliefs.  Beverly Baines, a law professor at Queen’s University believes that if the issue ever reaches the Supreme Court of Canada it will be hard to uphold the current polygamy laws.¹²

While the men from Bountiful are also charged with child trafficking, that in and of itself does not equate to polygamy.¹³ The problem with the current framework is that these men are being charged, among other acts, for their family practices. If the polygamy laws were abolished, the men would still be charged with their crimes against the children in Bountiful. Baines’ main focus is on gender equality, and hopes that women in polygamous relationships will have the chance to speak out as to whether polygamy is a harmful and abusive practice.¹⁴ If the women and children in these relationships believe the practice, excluding other criminal actions, is not abusive then the government should have no right criminalizing family choices.¹⁵ After all, at one point in time it was illegal to be in a same-sex marriage, a practice that is now widely accepted worldwide.

 

¹ Bala et al, “An International Review of Polygamy: Legal and Policy Implications for Canada” in Angela Campbell, ed, Polygamy in Canada: Legal and Social Implications for Women and Children (Ottawa: Status of Women Canada, 2005) 1 at 3.

² Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 293.

³ Hyde v Hyde and Woodmansee (1866), LR 1 PD 130 at 133.

⁴ Bala, supra note 1 at 3.

⁵ Civil Marriage Act, SC 2005, c 33, s 2.

⁶ Bala, supra note 1 at 3.

⁷ Family Law Act, RSO 1990, c F3, s 1(2).

⁸ Ibid.

⁹ Jason Proctor, “B.C. polygamists, accused of taking child brides to U.S., face trial”, CBC News (21 November 2016), online: <www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/polygamy-bountiful-oler-blackmore-1.3860888>.

¹⁰ Daphne Bramham, “Polygamist parents from Bountiful, British Columbia, go on trial for child trafficking”, National Post (22 November 2016), online: <news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/polygamist-parents-from-bountiful-british-columbia-go-on-trial-for-child-trafficking>.

¹¹ Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 2(a), Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11.

¹² Rachel Browne, “Feminists call for decriminalization of polygamy”, Macleans (15 August 2014), online: <www.macleans.ca/news/canada/in-wake-of-bountiful-charges-feminists-call-for-decriminalization-of-polygamy/>.

¹³ Ibid.

¹⁴ Ibid.

¹⁵ Ibid.

Supreme Court of Canada Appointments

Dear Sir or Madam,

Yesterday we  outlined the structure of Canada’s court system. Today we move on to Canada’s highest judicial authority, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC).

Sections 4-6 of the federal Supreme Court Act specify the composition of the SCC. The Governor in Council (the governor general, on advice from the Prime Minister’s Cabinet) appoints an individual who has been a judge of a provincial superior court—the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta or Supreme Court of British Columbia for example—or who has been a lawyer for at least ten years standing at the bar of any province.[1] Three of the SCC judges must be from Quebec, which  is likely to ensure that the SCC bench is sufficiently experienced with Quebec’s civil law system. It is also customary to include judges from across Canada’s geographical regions: three from Ontario, one from British Columbia, one from the Prairie provinces, and one from the Maritimes.

In August this year, Prime Minister (PM) Justin Trudeau announced a new nomination process for selecting SCC judges in an attempt to ensure that the process is “transparent, inclusive, and accountable.”[2] Before the new selection process, the PM appointed SCC judges through a simpler but arguably less transparent process. Before August 2016, the Prime Minister’s Office could nominate any superior court judge or lawyer in accordance with the SCA and the Constitution Acts, 1867-1982.[3] Customarily, this included conferring with provincial Attorneys General and with the Chief Justice of the SCC. Usually, this process resulted in a bench comprised of Justices with similar political and social values to the sitting government’s views. The nominees will probably continue to be politically aligned with sitting governments, but PM Trudeau’s intention is to demonstrate to the public that the nominees are selected for more than their political views.

The new Independent Advisory Board for Supreme Court of Canada Judicial Appointments, chaired by Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell, convened to “provide non-binding, merit-based recommendations” to the PM.[4] By August 24, the Board had received 31 applications. It provided a short-list of 5 candidates to the PM, who nominated Hon. Malcolm Rowe. The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould, explained that the PM chose Rowe J. from the short-list “because of his legal and judicial acumen, public service background, ability to work in French, and ‘depth of understanding’ of Canada’s ‘diversity.’”[5] It also helped that Rowe J. fills retiring Justice Thomas Cromwell’s Atlantic region seat. As a result of this more transparent process, the public can review Justice Rowe’s application questionnaire here.

On October 25, 24 parliamentarians convened in Ottawa in a new question-and-answer session to determine Justice Rowe’s proficiency in French, his attention to diversity in Canada, and his commitment to access to justice. Inquirers included the leaders of the NDP, Green Party, and Bloc Quebecois, senators (including Hon. Murray Sinclair, first Manitoba Indigenous judge and former chair of the Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission), and other members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. You can view the question-and-answer session here.

Section 41 of the Constitution provides the standard procedure to amend the “composition of the Supreme Court of Canada”.[6] It is the same as amending the office of the Queen or the Governor General and Lieutenants General of the provinces. In 2014, former PM Harper nominated Justice Marc Nadon from the Federal Court of Appeal, the Governor General appointed him, and he was sworn in according to the SCA.

Unfortunately, despite Nadon J.’s experience, expertise, and suitability to sit as puisne justice of the SCC, he was ineligible to be appointed.[7] The SCC decided with a 6-1 majority in Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss. 5 and 6 that the correct interpretation of ss. 5 and 6 of the SCA excludes current judges of the Federal Court of Appeal from sitting on the SCC.[8]

The Supreme Court Act does not state that a Military Court judge, a Tax Court judge, Federal Court judge, or a Federal Court of Appeal judge can be appointed to the SCC. Other sections in the act do refer to judges of the Tax Court, Federal Court, and Federal Court of Appeal,[9] so it is unlikely to be an error in drafting.

The new process for selecting SCC judges does not change the ultimate appointment process, so it is not necessary to amend the SCA or the Constitution. It merely suggests appropriate candidates to the PM and, hopefully, would prevent an incident like that in 2014 because there are more experts reviewing the candidates.

Humble regards,

The Dominion

 

[1] RSC, 1985, c S-26 [SCA].

[2] Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, “New process for judicial appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada”, News (Ottawa: 2 August 2016), online: <pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2016/08/02/new-process-judicial-appointments-supreme-court-canada>.

[3] 30 & 31 Victoria, c 3 (UK), s 41(d) [Constitution].

[4] “The Independent Advisory Board for Supreme Court of Canada Judicial Appointments”, Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada (2 August 2016), online: <www.fja-cmf.gc.ca/scc-csc/index-eng.html>.

[5] Tonda Maccharles, “Supreme court nominee’s sex assault ruling no concern for Kim Campbell”, The Toronto Star, online: <https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/10/24/supreme-court-nominees-sex-assault-ruling-no-concern-for-kim-campbell.html>.

[6] Constitution, supra note 3.

[7] Justice Thomas Cromwell, as quoted by Laura Stone and Sean Fine, “Nadon appointment rejected on technicality, Justice Cromwell says”, The Globe and Mail (Ottawa: 14 September 2014), online: <www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/nadon-appointment-rejected-on-technicality-justice-cromwell-says/article31891826/>. For more information see <www.cbc.ca/news/politics/marc-nadon-s-failed-journey-to-the-supreme-court-1.2636403>.

[8] 2014 SCC 21, [2014] 1 SCR 433 at para 4.

[9] See, for example, SCA, s 30.

The Indian Act: A Cycle of Discrimination

Dear Sir or Madam:

Today we write to you regarding the Indian Act’s negative impact on Aboriginal people in Canada. The Indian Act is the primary statute the federal government enacted to administer Indian status, and regulate Indian reserves.¹  The Act has received significant backlash from Indigenous communities due to highly discriminatory sections, and the paternalistic nature of the document.² The Indian Act has historically discriminated against Indigenous women, awarding them fewer rights than Indigenous men.³ Today’s post will provide a brief history of the Indian Act; then discuss sex discrimination within the Act and reactions to the legislation.

The Indian Act governs how the federal government interacts with Indigenous peoples. First Nations people are the only subjects of the legislation; Metis and Inuit people are not included.⁴ The 1850 Act for the better protection of the Lands and Property of the Indians in Lower Canada was one of the first pieces of legislation to determine who was classified as a legal Indian.⁵ Status was granted based on bloodline and all descendants of a legal Indian would also receive Indian status.⁶ Further, any non-status individual who married a status Indian would receive legal status.⁷ Status would later be regulated under the Indian Act of 1867.

The federal government was granted constitutional powers over “Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians” under s. 91(24) of the British North America Act.⁸  Any legislation enacted for the purpose of governing First Nations individuals is the exclusive control of the federal government. The Indian Act of 1867 was created when the federal government combined the Gradual Civilization Act and the Gradual Enfranchisement Act into one document.⁹ The purpose of the document was to control First Nations peoples and assimilate them into a European-type culture.¹⁰ Early provisions of the Act were highly discriminatory towards all Indigenous people. The Act forced Indigenous children into residential schools, banned religious potlatches (gift giving ceremonies), banned dancing, and made it illegal to hire lawyers to bring claims against the government unless they had government consent.¹¹ Important aspects of Indigenous cultures were outlawed in an attempt to assimilate Indigenous people into society.

One of the most problematic and contentious parts of the Indian Act is a set of sections pertaining to Indian status. Critics of the Act and Indigenous advocates suggest that the administration of status is highly discriminatory against women.¹² Even with several amendments to the Indian Act since 1867, status continues to be passed along through male lineage, never female lineage.¹³ The federal government has been aware of this sex discrimination since the 1960s, but the discrimination still remains.¹⁴ The government attempted to address this issue by passing Bill C-31 which allowed women who had lost their Indian status, through marriage to a non-status individual, to apply for status reinstatement.¹⁵ Even with the new amendments discrimination remains because women who marry out can only pass their status to one generation of children, whereas men who marry out are able to pass status through two generations.¹⁶

Indigenous women today still “face multiple challenges with respect to securing status for themselves and their children.”¹⁷ The hardship of securing status can cause negative social interactions by creating a subset of Indigenous women that are seen as less pure than those with full legal status.¹⁸ This system of classification perpetuates violence against Indigenous women because they are viewed as less pure, causing profound psychological stress and trauma.¹⁹ The government needs to find a less discriminatory practice for classifying legal status. In the future, we can only hope that women and men will receive the same rights under the Indian Act and the sex discrimination will cease to exist.

Your Humble and Obedient Servants,

The Dominion

 

¹ William B Henderson, “Indian Act” (7 February 2006), The Canadian Encyclopedia, online: <www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/indian-act/>.

² Gwen Brodsky, “Indian Act Sex Discrimination: Enough Inquiry Already, Just Fix It” (2016) 28 CJWL 314 at 314.

³ Ibid at 314.

⁴ Henderson, supra note 1.

⁵ Ibid.

⁶ Ibid.

⁷ Ibid.

⁸ Constitution Act, 1867 (UK), 30 & 31 Vict, c 3, s 91(24), reprinted in RSC 1985, Appendix II, No 5.

⁹ Ibid.

¹⁰ Ibid.

¹¹ Ibid.

¹² Brodsky, supra note 2 at 315.

¹³ Bob Joseph, “Indian Act and Women’s Status Discrimination Via Bill C31 and Bill C3” (9 July 2012), Working Effectively with Indigenous Peoples™ (blog), online: <www.ictinc.ca/indian-act-and-womens-status-discrimination-via-bill-c-31-bill-c-3>.

¹⁴ Brodsky, supra note 2 at 315.

¹⁵ Henderson, supra note 1.

¹⁶ Joseph, supra note 13.

¹⁷ Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women in British Columbia, Canada OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc 30/14 21 (2014), Organization of American States <www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/Indigenous-Women-BC-Canada-en.pdf> at para 69.

¹⁸ Ibid at para 69.

¹⁹ Ibid at para 69.

What is Section 91?

Dear Sir or Madam:

Today we write to you regarding the emergence of section 91 of the British North America Act of 1867 (BNA Act) and the powers that the provision awarded. Canada needed to balance the competing interests of individual provinces with the ideal of creating a strong and united Canada. Canada was not the first country faced with this dilemma, many other sovereign nations, including the United States, encountered the same predicament while trying to write their constitutions. The BNA Act recognized the interests of both parties, concretizing Canada’s federal powers in s. 91, and provincial powers under s. 92. A brief history as to how these provisions arose is detailed below.

A month after the Charlottetown Conference (aforementioned in yesterday’s letter, click here to review yesterday's post), the existing provinces all met at the Quebec Conference to try and hash out a constitutional framework for the impending nation of Canada.¹ This was where federalism, or the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments, became a focal point of discussion. The delegates passed the “72 Resolutions”, which detailed which powers the provinces and the Dominion of Canada would retain should Confederation move forward.²

Certain provinces were interested in maintaining individual autonomy, whereas others were more interested in developing a strong centralized government. The Atlantic Provinces were particularly worried that a strong centralized government would leave their unique island needs improperly governed.³ Mainly due to their size and unique culture, they wanted to ensure they were still accurately represented at the national level. In contrast, John A. McDonald, one of Confederation’s key leaders, advocated for a strong centralized federal government to avoid tension between neighbouring provinces.⁴ This kind of tension led the United States down the road to the American Civil War, an ending McDonald wanted to adamantly avoid.⁵ Ultimately, the BNA Act would account for both provincial and national interests by creating a federalist nation under ss.91-92.

Section 91 granted the federal government several far-reaching powers. Notable powers included: regulation of trade and commerce, military, banking, bankruptcy and insolvency, Indians and Lands reserved for Indians, marriage and divorce, and the criminal law.⁶ The majority of these powers seemed to be a reasonable compromise since they had widespread impact on almost every province in the Dominion.

Other powers granted remained more suspect. Powers including: navigation and shipping, sea coasts and island fisheries, beacons, and ferries between provinces,⁷ seem to relate directly to the interests the Atlantic Provinces were concerned about losing control over. Last time we at the Dominion checked our records; the people of Upper Canada have not done much fishing or shipping in their day. Although a strong central government helped the Dominion establish a sense of unified allegiance, one must wonder if we gave the federal government too much power over practices they cannot accurately understand.

 

Your Humble and Obedient Servants,

The Dominion

 

¹P.B. Waite “Confederation”, (22 September 2013), http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/confederation/
²Ibid.
³Ibid.
⁴Ibid.
⁵Ibid.
⁶Constitution Act, 1867 (UK), 30 & 31 Vict, c 3, s 91, reprinted in RSC 1985, Appendix II, No 5.
⁷Ibid.

Law and Social Media - Meet the Team - Alexander Brophy

How much do people really know about The British North America Act, 1867 (BNA Act), the founding document and first Constitution of our country? The answer is often “not very much”. We are generally aware that Canada was established in 1867, and may know the name of the document, but we have little to no understanding of what that document contains and how it has and continues to affect our society. Before studying it in law school, I certainly didn't. This project, leading up to and during the 150th anniversary of this historic document, will hopefully change that for some people.

My name is Alexander Brophy. As a second year law student at the University of Alberta I have chosen to enroll in the Law and Social Media class that will be writing this blog. I'm excited to be a part of this because I understand the value of ensuring that people have legal knowledge. My interests skew towards matters of criminal law and civil rights, where it is so important that everyone in our society have as much knowledge as possible. This project will give me good experience writing about the law in an accessible and hopefully engaging way. I look forward to this opportunity to engage with and educate the public.

The BNA Act might seem dry at first, especially compared the more talked about American Constitution. As a document it is primarily concerned with division of powers between the Federal Government and the Provinces, as well as other structural issues such as courts. Most people really don't have much knowledge about how important such structural issues are in their lives. I plan to put my educational background in History to work this year. A lot of my output will be sharing stories with you. The various provisions of the BNA Act have affected many important events in the last 150 years, and continue to have an effect today. Liquor laws (and soon, marijuana laws), obscenity, the FLQ crisis, wartime emergencies, and even something as banal as whether one can believe that margarine is butter have all related in some way to the BNA Act. I hope that readers will come away feeling that they know a bit more about why things in our country are the way they are.

To receive daily alerts to our blog, email the words "add me" to TheDominion@gmail.com, follow us on Twitter @Dominion_2017, and like our Facebook page /Dominion2017.

Disney Adoption Court Day

A five year old kid is finally getting her adoption hearing so she can spend the rest of her life with her loving adoptive parents. So what could make such a hearing even more special? If all the court-staff, judge included, dressed up as Disney characters!

 

Family Law & Immigration: Intersecting Worlds - Continuing Legal Education

Family law practitioners (and others) in the Edmonton area may be interested in attending a session on May 26, 2016 about the intersection between family and immigration law.  The organizers have provided the following information:

You are invited to join us for a free seminar to learn more about the aspects of immigration law and practice that affect our family law clients. This seminar will cover the following topics (and more!):

• background on the various pathways to Permanent Residence status/Refugee Claims sponsorship applications
• the impact of relationship breakdowns
• conditional Permanent Residence status
• requesting an exemption from the conditional provision
• sponsorship and child/spousal support
• child custody and removals
• Q&A with our presenters

Presenters: Ruth Williams (Immigration Staff Lawyer, Family Law Office), and Robyn Thomas (Manager of Immigration Services, Regulated Canadian IMM Consultant, Edmonton Community Legal Centre)

When: Thursday May 26, 4-7pm

Where: Family Law Office (Legal Aid Alberta) 10310 Jasper Avenue – 7^th floor

Refreshments will be provided.

This event is hosted by Marie Gordon and Andrea Doyle, with thanks to the Family Law Office and ECLC.

SPACE IS LIMITED – please RSVP to m.gordon@gzlaw.ca

Movie Review: "Suffragette" (2015)

Director: Sarah Gavron

Released: October 2015 (UK), November 2015 (Canada)

 

Cast:

Carey Mulligan: an underpaid, abused, laundry worker; a loving wife and doting mother. Demure Maud Watts falls in with a group of suffragettes, much to her husband’s chagrin. The group takes to public civil disobedience to garner support for votes for women. Watts reluctantly appears before Chancellor of the Exchequer Court, David Lloyd George (who later became Prime Minister), where she testifies to the lower wages and more dangerous work assigned to women in the laundry.

Helena Bonham Carter: Edith Ellyn, a respected pharmacist and known militant suffragette who campaigns and “agitates” for legal reform to allow women to vote. She and her husband both served jail-time for suffrage related activities. Ellyn is the organizing force for most of the main suffragette characters.

Brendan Gleeson: Police Inspector Arthur Steed arrests, interrogates, and intimidates the women who campaign for legal reform. Reminiscent of gangland detectives in HBO’s The Wire, Steed photographs suffragettes and preys on them in hopes of turning them on their friends.

Anne-Marie Duff: Violet Miller, a fellow laundry worker, is caught between fighting for women’s voting rights and struggling to provide for her family. Considered a delinquent worker and stigmatized as an outcast, she served several prison sentences for her activism. Her young daughter also endures abuse as a laundry worker.

Ben Whishaw: Sonny Watts, husband of Maud Watts, also works in the laundry. Mr. Watts endures shame and derision from coworkers and neighbours as a result of his wife’s actions. Ultimately, he forces a life-changing sacrifice upon himself and his wife.

Meryl Streep: Emmeline Pankhurst, founder of the Women’s Suffrage and Political Union, gives  inflammatory speeches to women’s rights activists. The film has been credited for its accuracy in depicting the divide between more aggressive “suffragettes” like Pankhurst and more moderate “suffragists”, including Pankhurst’s own daughter, Sylvia.[1]

Natalie Press: Emily Wilding Davison, a well-known suffragette and confidante of Pankhurst. A seasoned veteran of the militant phase of the suffrage movement in England, she was incarcerated nine times and torturously force-fed forty-nine times.[2]

 

Suffragette is a fictional historical drama set in London, UK, in 1912-1913, which follows the main character Maud Watts as she enters the women’s suffrage movement.[3] Overall it is engaging and, at times, graphic. I’ll try not to spoil the story for you, but do note that some of the content is quite emotional. One scene in particular had me babbling like a baby. Other scenes were difficult to watch, such as the police beating women who were angrily, yet peacefully, protesting parliament’s unwillingness to reform the suffrage laws. Some of the scenes depicting suffragettes in jail were disturbing, especially when those enduring hunger strikes were force-fed through tubes plunged down their nasal passages. The hunger strikes were significant because suffragettes were not considered political prisoners. The authorities would not risk death of a prisoner by starvation as it would draw media attention to the movement.

Watts’s entry into suffrage activism was not calculated. Moreover, her testimony at the Court of Exchequer related to the working conditions at the laundry where she worked. Specifically, the “laundresses” had more difficult and dangerous tasks than their male colleagues, they worked longer hours, were paid less, and some endured sexual abuse. Initially, Watts is more focused on improving working conditions for women than she is on getting the vote, perhaps because, as her husband reminds her, getting the vote for working class women was a pipe dream. During the time that this film takes place, 1912-1913, working-class women like Watts and Miller had more obstacles preventing them from voting than just their gender.[4] The United Kingdom enfranchised women over the age of thirty who met minimum property requirements in 1918, after the second world war. However, women who did not own property eventually received the right to vote in 1928.

The three historically accurate characters in the film are David Lloyd George, Emmeline Pankhurst, and Emily Wilding Davison. Pankhurst, the famous suffragette, makes an inciteful speech in the film, which accurately depicts her life as a fugitive.[5] The film also references fracturing in the suffrage movement between militant and moderate activists, including Pankhurst’s own daughter.[6] The activism, experience, and sacrifice for the movement by Emily Wilding Davison (played by Natalie Press) is also historically accurate.[7] Spoiler alert: click here for actual footage of Davison’s extreme sacrifice to rattle lawmakers enough that they would realize the desperation of women who sought voting rights.

Overall, the film was enjoyable and engaging with a great cast. One need not be a feminist, in any sense of the word, to understand the human struggle portrayed by the characters. And speaking of "militant" suffragettes, check back tomorrow to read about women in the military.

 

[1] “Suffragette (film)”, Wikipedia (online): <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette_(film)> [Wikipedia].

[2] Dr. Jennifer Frangos, “Emily Wilding Davison - Suffragette Martyr?”, University of Missouri--Kansas City Womens and Gender Studies, 28 October 2013 (online): <http://info.umkc.edu/wgs/2013/10/28/emily-wilding-davison-suffragette-and-radical/> [Frangos].

[3] Wikipedia, supra note 1.

[4] AO Scott, “Review: In ‘Suffragette’, Feminist Insight That’s About More Than the Vote”, The New York Times, 22 October 2015 (online): <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/23/movies/review-in-suffragette-feminist-insight-thats-about-more-than-the-vote.html?referrer=google_kp&_r=0>.

[5]  “Emmeline Pankhurst (1858 - 1928)”, BBC Historic Figures (online): <http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/pankhurst_emmeline.shtml>.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Frangos, supra note 2.

Women and Men in the Practice of Law

“When half of your talent pool is comprised of women, there’s a danger that you’re missing out on keeping some of the best and the brightest.”[1]

 

Last week we published an interview with the Right Honourable Kim Campbell. Ms. Campbell is widely known for her cabinet positions where she was the first female Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, the first and only female Minister of National Defence, and the first and only female Prime Minister of Canada.[2] As Ms. Campbell discussed in her interview, when all people in society are equally free they are able to pursue goals based on their personal interests, rather than what is conscribed by gender roles required for the survival of the species.

In today’s post we examine the current role that women have in the legal system; however, it is first necessary to examine the history behind women’s role in the legal profession. A parallel can be drawn between the women’s suffrage movement and women becoming members of the legal profession, as women were not always eligible for admission to the bar. Specifically, women first gained admission to law schools in 1891, several years after Canadian universities established permanent law schools.[3] Further, the first female lawyers in Canada pressed for admission to the bar in the late 1800s and early 1900s, which was done concurrently with the suffrage movement.[4] The Ontario bar admitted the first woman, Clara Brett Martin, in 1897. In 1906 in New Brunswick and in 1912 in British Columbia, after being denied admission, women unsuccessfully challenged the provincial bar associations in the courts. Shortly after these court cases, both provinces amended their legislation to allow women to be admitted to the bar and to practice law.[5]

Today, law schools across Canada show that women and men are entering and graduating from law schools at an approximately equal rate.[6] The Law Society of Upper Canada estimated that women accounted for more than 50% of law school graduates during the 2000s.[7] However, women tend to leave private practice earlier than men. For example, a recent CBC Radio interview explored the major reason that female criminal lawyers leave private practice: discrimination.[8]

However, in a casual conversation with a female partner at a mid-size Edmonton-area law firm, I discovered a positive trend. In this particular firm, though the equity partners are almost all men, lawyers at the associate-level are almost all women. Without any direct intention to create more diversity among the lawyers, the lawyers involved in the hiring process noticed that women who applied to this firm simply tended to stand out above men who applied. On the lack of gender bias in their hiring practices, the partner joked that they almost need to start focusing on hiring men at the associate level.

It is certainly encouraging that some law firms are equally impressed with the qualifications and achievements demonstrated by men and women graduating from law school, and that diversity can be well represented among junior lawyers. But what about senior lawyers, who greatly contribute to the legal community as they have a significant number of years of experience? The following quotation from a law professor at York University in Toronto discusses the relevant statistics:

[In the United States, w]omen comprise only about 15% of equity partners and 26% of non-equity partners, even though 46% of law firm associates are women. Among equity partners, women make about 89% of men. The gap in [median] compensation of male and female equity partners cannot be explained by differences in billable hours, total hours, or books of business. Women are vastly underrepresented on the powerful governance committees that make key firm decisions: they hold only 20% of the positions on those committees. Only 4% of law firms have female managing partners. Seventy percent of in-house counsel jobs are held by women.[9]

Specifically, in Canada:

• In 2010, there were 22,261 practicing women lawyers and 37,617 practicing men lawyers.
• For new lawyers practicing 0-5 years, in many areas, women are the majority, or close to the majority, and their numbers and percentages increased from 1998 to 2012 
  • Manitoba: 52.4% of the newest lawyers are women
  • Saskatchewan: 50.4%
  • Ontario: 52.3%
  • British Columbia: 51.2%
  • Barreau du Quebec: 62.1%[10]

[10.1]

Further, the Justicia Project examines diversity and attrition rates among lawyers. Developed in Ontario, the initiative has spread to other provinces in Canada.[11] The Law Society of Upper Canada cites that 38% of lawyers are women, but 60% of lawyers leaving private practice are women.[12] The Law Society of Alberta reports “that in Alberta as law firm size increases, the diversity within the firm is more likely to decrease.”[13] In British Columbia, women comprise 67% of lawyers in private practice while men comprise 82%.[14] The chart pictured at the top of this post, although referencing data from 1995, provides a visual illustration of the staggering differences between male and female lawyers across different age brackets.[15] This graph is also significant because it shows the disparity between lawyers, workers who have a degree other than in law, and the working population in general. Moreover, it demonstrates that while women comprised approximately 50% of lawyers entering practice twenty-one years ago, today women are still not in equal representation as equity partners.

The Law Society of Upper Canada notes that an overwhelming reason that women leave private practice jobs is to achieve a “work-life balance”, especially when women have young children.[16] In our modern economy, it can be financially challenging for two-parent families to allow one parent to stay at home to raise the children, which is a full-time non-paying job. However, due to personal choices among families and arguably also due to the structure of our gender-stereotyped culture, mothers tend to be the parents who elect to reduce time at an out-of-home paid job in favour of spending more time in the home to care for their children. For lawyers, this sometimes includes switching from a time-demanding, private practice in a large firm to in-house counsel positions or government legal positions.[17] Often, these latter types of jobs offer lawyers a work schedule that is more predictable and more manageable in relation to the needs of their families.[18]

Equal representation among lawyers with diverse qualities, interests, and backgrounds is a challenge recognized by the Canadian Bar Association and provincial law societies. While no one should dictate what personal career choices a person makes, the Law Society of Upper Canada asserts that “we need to make sure [lawyers] don’t leave [private practice] because of gender-related issues.”[19] Part of the reason that women’s suffrage and related equality issues was chosen as the topic for our Ms. Suffragette blog is due to the recognition that there are issues which some lawyers face that other lawyers do not. Gender discrimination is one of these issues.[20] With discourse, awareness, and diverse engagement on issues that law students and lawyers face, we can further deconstruct discrimination and create a more fairly representative community among lawyers. Achieving diversity and equality among lawyers, law professors, and judges will help reflect the reality of diversity in our society, and can better inform the legal community of society’s values.

 

[1] Ann Macaulay, How to Retain Top Female Talent, and What Women Should Look for in a Law Firm, The Canadian Bar Association, 10 October 2014 (online): <https://www.cba.org/Publications-Resources/CBA-Practice-Link/Young-Lawyers/2014/How-to-Retain-Top-Female-Talent,-and-What-Women-Sh> [Macaulay].

[2] The Right Honourable Kim Campbell, “Accomplishments” (online): <http://www.kimcampbell.com/node/26> [Campbell].

[3] Mary Jane Mossman, “The First Women Lawyers: ‘Piecemeal Progress and Circumscribed Success’”, Osgoode Hall Law Journal vol 45, no 2 (online): <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1645369>.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Macaulay, supra note 1; Federica Schutz, QC, “Justicia Project Aimed at Retaining Women Lawyers in Prive Practice”, The Advisory: Volume 10, Issue 3, July 2012, Law Society of Alberta (online): <http://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/advisory_2012/advisory_volume_10_issue_3_Jul2012/news/justicia.aspx> [Schutz].

[7] Trisha Crawford, “Women lawyers leaving in droves”, Toronto Star Newspapers, 11 February 2011 (online): <http://www.thestar.com/life/2011/02/25/women_lawyers_leaving_in_droves.html> [Crawford].

[8] Maureen Brosnahan, “Women Leaving Criminal Law Practice in Alarming Numbers”, CBC/Radio-Canada, 7 March 2016 (online): <http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/women-criminal-law-1.3476637>.

[9] David Doorey, “Women’s Situation Not Improving in Law Firms, But I (Still) Have a Plan”, Doorey’s Law of Work blog, 7 March 2016 (online): <http://lawofwork.ca/?p=5727#sthash.ooej3vaa.dpuf> [Doorey], emphasis added. Please note this refers to USA statistics; Dr. Doorey does estimate that they are similar to Canadian statistics.

[10] "Women in Law in Canada and the US", Knowledge Center, 3 March 2015, Catalyst Inc (online): <http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-law-canada-and-us>.

[10.1] "Statistical Snapshot of Lawyers in Ontario", The Law Society of Upper Canada (online): <http://www.lsuc.on.ca/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=2147488150>.

[11] Macaulay, supra note 1.

[12] Crawford, supra note 7.

[13] Macaulay, supra note 1.

[14] Ibid.; Crawford, supra note 7.

[15] Abdul Rashid, Chart: “Earnings of Lawyers”, Perspectives, Statistics Canada, 2000 (online): <http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/2000001/4886-eng.pdf>.

[16] Crawford, supra note 7.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid.

[20] As we recognized in our 630 CHED radio interview with @RyanJesperson, cultural heritage and ethnolinguistic diversity in law school and the practice of law is also an issue in our society.

Interview with the Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell

Click here for Ms. Suffragette's interview with former Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Honourable Kim Campbell, P.C., C.C., O.B.C., Q.C., or simply press play on the video below. 

 

We hope that you enjoy this entertaining and informative interview with Ms. Campbell as much as we did filming it! Ms. Suffragette caught up with Ms. Campbell at her office at the University of Alberta, where she heads the Peter Lougheed Leadership College.

Ms. Campbell educates Ms. Suffragette member Leri Koornhof on: the history of Canadian women's suffrage, Etruscan equality, gender parity in politics and in Prime Minister Trudeau's cabinet, primate social sex attitudes, and women in leadership positions. We even toss Trump's name in there!

He Said / She Said: Voting, Voicing, and Testifying

Studying the history of the women’s suffrage movement reveals many social factors that affected and continue to affect Canada’s legal system. As readers of the Ms. Suffragette blog are aware, 2016 celebrates one hundred years of women’s voting rights in Canada. Significant progress in this area has been made over the last century, as women and men now represent approximately equal numbers of voters [1].

By enacting voting rights for women, Canadian society recognized that women and men had equal voices in the political sphere. The ability to express one’s voice in a political forum reflects the fundamental right to express one’s personal opinions on important, public matters.Therefore, the right to vote is tied to the core of personhood. However, it is essential that equality between men and women extends outside the political sphere. Just as women are considered equal to men politically, they must also be considered equal to men individually, in social situations, and under the law.

In Canadian courts, the evidentiary testimony of a witness is presented through viva voce evidence, which is the legal term referring to oral testimony in court. In the search for the truth, a witness’s factual views on an event can be compared to another’s understanding of the same event. This comparison of views often occurs in the context of sexual assault trials. A complainant of sexual assault can relay the events as he or she views them, and the accused can also testify as to his or her version of the events in question. Courts are sometimes presented with a diametrically opposed, he-said/she-said version of events. In assessing the truth, the court will consider the credibility of the witnesses. In the Canadian legal system, the testimony of women and men is assessed equally, irrespective of their gender [2]. However, in countries that include Islamic Shari’a law in their legal systems, a woman's testimony is not accorded equal weight to a man’s testimony. For example, in countries such as Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the United Arab Emirates, women are not perceived to be as credible as men in regards to their testimony [3].

Further, sexual violence tends to be perpetrated by men upon women, and this gender-based trend is fairly uniform globally [4]. In legal systems where women are viewed as having equal voices to men, victims of sexual violence may have better access to justice, and perpetrators are more likely to be reprimanded or rehabilitated. However, in countries that incorporate Shari’a law into their legal systems, victims have less opportunities to have their voice heard under the law. As women are more likely to be victims and as men are more likely to be perpetrators, women have less chances to effect retribution against male perpetrators.

In traditional Shari’a religious courts “the testimony of two women is required to match the value of one man’s testimony” [5]. In Jordan, for example, a woman who applies for a divorce on the basis of domestic violence must provide the court with “two male witnesses” because her own evidence is insufficient [6]. Lebanon, Kuwait, and Syria have civil and criminal court systems for most claims and offences. However, the systems are supplemented with a Shari’a court system [7]. The Shari’a courts, where a woman’s testimony is worth only half of a man’s testimony, prosecute moral crimes. Moral crimes in these religious courts include adultery, marital rape, and “honor” [sic] crimes. An example of a potential honour crime is “the murder or beating of [a woman] for alleged sexual misconduct” [8].

Due to international pressure, especially from the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (“CEDAW”), many countries have moved away from purely Shari’a-based legal systems in order to increase the legal and political rights of women [9]. Bahrain ratified CEDAW in 2002, but with reservations concerning “family law, equality, freedom of movement, and residence” [10]. Generally, women in Bahrain are equal to men in the legal courts, but Shari’a courts still “state that a valid witness should be two men, or two women and one man” [11]. Egypt ratified much of CEDAW in 1981, and a woman’s testimony is legally equal to that of a man [12]. However, conservative power structures still make access to justice difficult for women when bringing assault claims to the courts [13]. The United Arab Emirates ratified many of the CEDAW Articles in 2004, but retain “precepts of Shari’a regarding [certain traditional] rights” [14]. For example, despite Dubai’s international appeal, in the absence of a confession to sexual assault, four adult male witnesses must supplement a female complainant’s testimony in order for a court to proceed with a conviction [15].

In Canada’s legal system, a woman’s voice is equal to that of a man in regards to court testimony. However, female complainants of sexual assault still face a stigma that is not attributed to complainants of non-sexual violence. Since sexual violence is a gender-based phenomenon, women are often disproportionately affected and negatively treated when they allege that they were sexually assaulted. The highly-publicized Jian Ghomeshi sexual assault trial was completed last week, and the judgment will be released on March 24th. Check back tomorrow for Ms. Suffragette’s analysis of the treatment of the female complainants and why the history of women’s positions in society is so important to the study of law.

 

[1] “Estimation of Voter Turnout by Age Group and Gender at the 2011 Federal General Election” (17 February 2016), online: <http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=rec/part/estim/41ge&document=report41&lang=e>.

[2] Sameena Nazir & Leigh Tomppert, Women's Rights in the Middle East and North Africa: Citizenship and Justice (New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005) [Nazir].

[3] Ibid.

[4] “The Facts: Gender Inequality and Violence Against Women and Girls Around the World” (17 February 2016), online: <http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/publications-a-z/1556-the-facts-gender-inequality-and-violence-against-women-and-girls-around-the-world>.

[5] Nizar, supra note 2 at 44.

[6] Ibid at 114.

[7] Ibid at 44, 128, 278.

[8] Ibid at 278.

[9] Ibid at 54.

[10] Ibid at 52, 54.

[11] Ibid at 53.

[12] Ibid at 73.

[13] Ibid at 71.

[14] Ibid at 317.

[15] “Dubai sentences Norwegian woman who reported rape” (17 February 2016), online: <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23381448>.

“Pyrotechnic” Eloquence: Maritime Provinces Part II [1]

"For years we agitated gently," but it was "surprising to find otherwise delightful people fly into terrific rages and order us out of their offices, when they learnt what our mission was" [2].

Today we continue the discussion on the suffrage movement in the Maritime provinces. In addition to the challenges that the “weight of indifference” presented, conservative opposition among the provinces’ legislatures delayed the vote for women, especially in Prince Edward Island, as well as Newfoundland and Labrador. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick enfranchised women in 1918 and 1919, respectively. Women in Prince Edward Island, along with Newfoundland and Labrador, waited until 1922 and 1925.

The Nova Scotia Attorney-General, Honourable J.W. Longley, was the province’s most vocal opponent to women’s suffrage. His “force and eloquence” were “a brilliant pyrotechnic display” of his views on women’s traditional roles [3]. During one legislative debate, Longley argued that voting would interfere with women’s four roles:

[F]irst, the bearing and bringing up of children, and this is the highest. Second, the creating of home and the beautifying of home life…. Third, to charm men and make the world pleasant, sweet and agreeable to live in. Fourth to be kindly and loving, to be sweet and to be cherished, to be weak and confiding, to be protected and to be the object of man’s devotion. [4]

Therefore, in the years prior to enfranchisement it was thought that a woman’s main purpose was to serve her husband, and her political opinion would be superfluous to that of his. In many regions, unmarried women were initially able to vote, only to lose that power upon marriage [5].

Voting rights for women were achieved in the Maritimes not because lawmakers considered women to be equal or to be deserving, but rather, they were able to “earn” the right to vote by helping the men in the war effort between 1914 and 1918 [6]. Many male supporters of women’s suffrage, such as politicians and news editors, helped appeal to the legislature to give women the vote in order to repay them for their wartime work.

As in most of Canada, Maritime women’s voting rights were granted before the Persons Case and before modern ideals of equality between the sexes developed. During a time when some men did not consider women to be equal citizens, radical liberals presented a strong opposition by maintaining that women had worked hard, just like men, and for men’s benefit, and therefore should be reimbursed with greater political rights [7]. The appeal to equality between the sexes was not as persuasive as it is today, and some men loudly voiced their disdain.

The Nova Scotia General Assembly finally acceded to calls for women’s suffrage in 1918. Catherine Cleverdon, in her seminal study “The Woman Suffrage Movement in Canada”, describes the movement as “sporadic” and as a “by-product” of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union’s campaign for prohibition [8]. This is not surprising given the “customary link between prohibition and equal franchise”, as legislators who were opposed to prohibition tended to oppose women’s suffrage as well [9].

New Brunswick, who had separated from Nova Scotia in 1784, granted women the vote in 1919, just a year after Nova Scotia. New Brunswick has been compared to “a younger sister who often patterns her actions after those of an older member of the family, [and] frequently looked for guidance to the senior province lying eastward” [10]. The women’s suffrage movement in New Brunswick struggled less than its counterpart in Nova Scotia for several reasons. First, the general apathy toward women’s suffrage was less of a “dead weight” than that of Nova Scotia’s because the New Brunswick legislature looked to progress in Nova Scotia with admiration. Second, New Brunswick women benefitted from more petitions and frequent delegations to the legislature, indicating that a significant number of women sought voting rights. Third, the Saint John Daily Telegraph provided public, male support for the suffrage movement. And fourth, the Enfranchisement Association in Saint John, New Brunswick, had a stronger public recognition than the same organization did in Nova Scotia. This was partially due to the fact that the women’s suffrage movement had finally gained better publicity by extending past western and central Canada to the conservative stronghold of the Maritimes [11].

Prince Edward Island’s geographic isolation and small population “built up a complete immunity to outside suffrage influences and was well content that no native variety of feminism root in its soil” [12]. The Prince Edward Island press reported on suffrage issues including women’s federal enfranchisement, voting rights’ correlation with educational enrichment, and the public benefit to gaining women’s “advice on matters pertaining to health, morals, and the home” [13]. Thus, although the newspapers brought attention to suffrage in Prince Edward Island, women continued to be siloed into customary roles. In 1919, the legislature promised that it would consider granting women the right to vote by 1922. Despite much opposition and rhetoric about women’s traditional roles in the home, the debt owed to women’s work during the war convinced conservative opponents to grant women the right to vote.

Finally, in 1925 Canada’s oldest colony, Newfoundland and Labrador, followed the other three Maritime provinces and granted women the right to vote. The active campaign in Newfoundland and Labrador lasted thirty-five years, starting with the formation of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union in 1890 [14]. Conservative male attitudes resisted the campaigns for suffrage partially because they were coupled with prohibition campaigns. Temperance suffragists found a correlation between alcohol, domestic violence, and women’s lack of political rights, making prohibition a natural co-campaign. Likewise, women’s suffrage was a natural co-campaign for many clergymen [15]. Many conservative men in positions of power contested the increase of women’s liberty which was coupled with a restriction on men’s freedom. After granting women the right to vote in municipal elections in 1921, the provincial legislature finally granted full voting rights to women in 1925.

The four Maritime provinces had long been considered more conservative than Ontario and the provinces to the west. At the same time, the low numbers of women actively involved in the suffrage movement exhibited an air of indifference toward attaining the right to vote. Politicians used this perception of indifference and the Victorian views on traditional gender roles to delay granting women full voting rights. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, with their stronger ties to the rest of Canada, granted women voting rights sooner. Prince Edward Island along with  Newfoundland and Labrador retained their isolated, conservative cultures until the 1920s.

Political rights for women relate not only to a voice on a ballot. Political equality translates into being treated equal on an individual level. Stay tuned tomorrow and Friday for discussions on how women’s voting rights affect women’s personal lives under the law!

[1] Catherine L Cleverdon, The Woman Suffrage Movement in Canada (Toronto: The University of Toronto Press, 1974) at 161 [Cleverdon].

[2] Ibid at 211.

[3] Ibid at 161.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid at 169, 170, 176, 193, 206.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid at 158-159

[9] Ibid at 159.

[10] Ibid at 178.

[11] Ibid at 156.

[12] Ibid at 198.

[13] Ibid at 206.

[14] “Women’s Suffrage”, Heritage Newfoundland and Labrador (16 February 2016), online: <http://www.heritage.nf.ca/articles/politics/women-suffrage.php>.

[15] Cleverdon, supra note 1 at 210.

Call me Old but not Traditional [1] - Henrietta Muir Edwards

The fifth member of the Famous Five women shares her name with the "Persons Case", Edwards v Canada (Attorney General), simply because her surname occurs first in the alphabet [2]. Henrietta Muir Edwards challenged mainstream Victorian-era Christian attitudes that accepted the exclusion of women. Refusing to accept women's subordinate position to men, Edwards considered everyone equally "coworkers with God" [3]. Her activism directly helped those in need and she rallied others to join.

The oldest of the Famous Five women prided herself on challenging traditional, antiquated beliefs in society. Edwards was born in 1849 to a wealthy, cultured, and religious family in Montréal, but spent her adult life relatively poor compared to her four colleagues. Her legal research and activist work always went unpaid [4]. Although most young, wealthy women of her day followed their privileged and traditional trajectory, Edwards used her Evangelical Christian principles to provide relief for less fortunate women. Rather than marry young, she convinced her father to buy a large house in downtown Montréal where she and her sister provided rooms, meals, reading classes, job training, and legal advice for young single women [5]. Edwards provided these services by creating the Working Girls Association, which eventually became the Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA). Edwards and her sister also founded "Working Woman of Canada", the first Canadian magazine for working women [6].

After marrying Dr. O.C. Edwards in 1876, Edwards and their three children accompanied Dr. Edwards as he practiced medicine throughout Canada, including the Northwest Territories, Ontario, Manitoba, and Alberta. Wherever they lived, she uplifted women and children who were at a disadvantaged position in society [7]. She engaged family, friends, and activists in discussing social issues. To advance her goal of women's equality, Edwards followed and researched Canadian law [8]. She earned the reputation of being well-versed in laws affecting women [9], and wrote organizational bylaws and letters to garner support for women's foundations [10]. In 1899, she became Convenor of Laws for the National Council of Women, compiling provincial laws affecting women and children [11].

Edwards was able to use her social position to leverage support for women's issues. With the assistance of Lady Aberdeen, the wife of the Governor General of Canada, Edwards founded the National Council of Women, the Victorian Order of Nurses, and the YWCA [12]. She lobbied extensively for the Alberta legislature to pass the Dower Act, SA, ch 14, in 1917 which gave property rights to widows. Edwards recognized that to gain rights equal to men, women needed to be recognized under property law, as suffrage was historically granted to property-owning men. In her post as Chair of the Provincial Council of Alberta, she furthered her cause to gain equal rights for parents in divorce matters and for women in prison [13].

When she was not working hard for equal rights, Edwards spent her leisure time painting and was known widely for her talent therein. She painted portraits of Lord Strathcona and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, among others. Much of her work was exhibited in Montréal, Ontario, and Chicago [14]. She was a loving wife and mother, and considered herself blessed to have had her husband's companionship "in perfect accord" for 39 years, as well as her three remarkable children, only one of whom outlived their mother [15].

It might seem that Canadian society's views "changed" with the introduction of voting rights for women in 1916 and with the Persons Case in 1929. However, we must remember that changes in law reflect societal values and that laws are not enacted in a vacuum. The women's suffrage movement preceding the 20^th century and the work of the Famous Five forced society to recognize that a woman should be viewed as equal to and distinct from all other men, including her husband, father, brother, or son. Women's organizations such as those founded by Edwards and Lady Aberdeen, along with the Women's Christian Temperance Union, the Women's Canadian Club, and the Women's Press Club, not only effected social change, but reflected the general progressive attitudes emerging out of Victorian-era Canada and Britain. The driving force behind the legal reform which gave women voting rights and the right to be appointed to the Senate can be attributed to notable members of the movement, including the Famous Five.

 

[1] Nancy Miller, The Famous Five: A Pivotal Moment in Canadian Women's History, "Henrietta Muir Edwards, First to Sign" (Cochrane: Deadwood Publishing, 2003) [Miller] at 66.

[2] Edwards v The Attorney General of Canada [1929] UKPC 86, [1930] AC 124 (PC) [Edwards v AG]; Miller, supra note 1.

[3] Miller, supra note 1 at 69.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Library and Archives Canada, Celebrating Women's Achievements, "Henrietta Muir Edwards", https://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/women/030001-1106-e.html [Collections Canada].

[6] Canadian Women Artists History Initiative, "Edwards, Henrietta Muir", Concordia University, http://cwahi.concordia.ca/sources/artists/displayArtist.php?ID_artist=136 [CWAHI].

[7] Miller, supra note 1.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Collections Canada, supra note 5; Miller, supra note 1.

[10] Miller, supra note 1.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] CWAHI, supra note 6.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Miller, supra note 1.

Cake Estate Sales

What do cake, estate sales, and vengance have to do with each other? Divorce, of course.