MSTH and LOPS Appeal Dismissal of Injunction Application

On January 31, 2022, the Alberta government will implement new restrictions on delivering and accessing supervised consumption services in the province. Among the restrictions is the requirement that to access these services, individuals will be asked to provide their Personal Health Number and other identifying details. This information will then be logged and stored in Alberta’s electronic medical records systems and shared with others without any further consent.

Currently, around 5 people a day are dying of overdoses in Alberta, meaning it is more important than ever that supervised consumptions services have low barriers to entry in order to provide life-saving benefits to as many individuals as possible. Surveys of individuals who access supervised consumption services, as well as academic research, demonstrate that if the personal identification of substance users is requested, even on a voluntary basis, they will stop accessing these services. They have well-founded concerns that if they provide personal identification they will be outed as users of illegal substances in the health care system, and to police agencies and others, which could result in discrimination in the health care they receive and an increased risk of being investigated and arrested for their substance use. Given the valuable role supervised consumption sites have in in reducing the the high risk of overdose death and other harms associated with unsupervised substance use, this disengagement comes with potentially fatal consequences.

Moms Stop the Harm Society (MSTH) and Lethbridge Overdose Prevention Society (LOPS) sued the Alberta government on the restrictions it imposed on supervised consumption services in the province. They allege that the measures breach the rights of substance users under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; frustrate the purpose behind the federal government’s framework for regulating supervised consumption services; and are ultra vires to the provincial powers enumerated at section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

In the lawsuit, the MSTH and LOPS asked the Court to delay the implementation of the personal identity requirements until the constitutionality of the measures as a whole can be decided. Although the personal identity requirements form only a portion of the overall framework, experts and substance users agree that these requirements specifically will cause immediate, serious harm to a large number of Albertans, leading to mass death that will exceed the current record overdose death rates.

On January 10, 2022, the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta issued its decision on MSTH and LOPS’s request that the Alberta government’s personal identity requirements to access supervised consumption sites be delayed until the legality of the new law is decided.

Although the Court agreed that people will die as a result of the personal identity requirements, it found that preventing the deaths of marginalized, vulnerable Albertans did not provide a greater public benefit than allowing the Alberta government to formulate addictions policy in an unrestrained manner. Allowing the Alberta government to proceed with its restrictions mattered more than avoiding the preventable deaths of Albertans through the same measures that the Court also accepted could be unconstitutional based on MSTH and LOPS’ legal arguments.

The Court’s finding is remarkable, and in the opinion of MSTH and LOPS, made on a series of legal and factual errors. A major error is that the Court did not correctly balance the right substance users have to life against Alberta’s ability to regulate addictions policy. The Court did not even refer to the harm that the identity requirements will cause to substance users as part of its balancing exercise. Instead, it looked at how strong one of the eight arguments MSTH and LOPS advanced to claim Alberta’s conduct was unconstitutional, which was the paramountcy argument, and balanced it against whether Alberta has the jurisdiction to develop addictions policy, not what public benefit the identity requirements would specifically achieve.

The Court also failed to appreciate the paramountcy argument advanced by MSTH and LOPS, conflating it with something entirely unrelated. It also appears to have misunderstood the doctrine of paramountcy on a foundational level.

The most striking error is the finding that preventing the deaths of many vulnerable Albertans through delaying the implementation of the identity requirements until their constitutionality can be determined provides a lesser public benefit than allowing Alberta to formulate addictions policy in an unrestrained manner. Avoiding the preventable deaths of countless Albertans — our friends, family members, and neighbours — grants a far greater public benefit than the temporary delay in implementing the identity requirements and the minor inconvenience an injunction would cause to the Alberta government.

The decision diminishes the personal worth and dignity of Albertans who use substances. It instills the notion that the lives of substance users do not matter. It reinforces their vulnerability and marginalization. It brings our system of justice into disrepute.

For this reason, MSTH and LOPS are seeking an expedited appeal of the Court’s decision to the Alberta Court of Appeal. An emergency appeal must be heard by January 31, 2022 or the requirements will come into effect and lead to the deaths of countless Albertans until an appeal can be heard on the standard time frames (which can take months).

MSTH and LOPS’ appeal materials are complete and submitted to the Court for filing. MSTH and LOPS has written to the Alberta Court of Appeal for an expedited hearing date, outlining the exceptional circumstances necessitating an expedited appeal hearing date. All that needs to happen for an expedited hearing is for the Alberta government to file its written argument and for the Alberta Court of Appeal to provide a date for a hearing.

Below are links to the decision and the appeal materials we have submitted to the Alberta Court of Appeal for Filing. MSTH and LOPS encourages you to review them to understand the situation and the exceptional circumstances and bases for the request made to the Alberta Court of Appeal to hold an expedited hearing in this matter:

1. Moms Stop the Harm Society v Alberta, 2022 ABQB 24

2. Notice of Appeal

3. Factum

4. Extracts of Key Evidence

5. Book of Authorities

Challenging Alberta’s Restrictions to Supervised Consumption Sites

Alberta is in the midst of an unprecedented opioid overdose epidemic. Opioid overdose deaths have increased exponentially over the last five years, with 1,152 deaths in 2020 alone – more than twice the amount recorded in 2016. The rate of overdose deaths has increased in 2021; at least 4 people die of an overdose each day in Alberta.

The reason behind the rise in overdose deaths is an increase of poisoned street-sourced opioid supply. More and more often, street-sourced opioids are being contaminated by synthetic opioids. If an individual is unaware that their substance is contaminated or poisoned, they are at a much greater risk of overdose and death.

Supervised consumption services save the lives of Albertans who use substances or live with substance use disorder. These services provide a secure space where people can safely use their pre-obtained substances, primarily opioids, in a monitored, hygienic, and non-criminalized setting. Supervised consumption services help prevent accidental overdoses and reduce additional harms associated with substance use. Without access to these sites, substance users are more likely to consume substances unsafely, greatly increasing their risk of death and serious injury. 

Supervised consumption sites in Canada are regulated by the federal government. Since 2017, the federal government has changed the law make it easier to establish supervised consumption sites, including overdose prevention sites, and ensure that there are minimal barriers to accessing these lifesaving services.

In April 2021, the Alberta Government adopted new regulations and adopted the Recovery-Oriented Overdose Prevention Service Guide (“Guidelines”), which reintroduce many of the same barriers to establishing supervised consumption sites that the federal government removed in 2017 and added many more. The Guidelines will have a significantly negative effect on those who access supervised consumption services in Alberta. They increase barriers to both accessing and operating the sites, which will prevent Albertans who use substances from accessing supervised consumption services.

In response to the Guidelines, Moms Stop the Harm (“MSTH”), an organization of families impacted by substance-use related harms and deaths, and the Lethbridge Overdose Prevention Society (“LOPS”), an overdose prevention service provider based in Lethbridge, have commenced legal action against the Government of Alberta to ensure that no additional barriers to the access and provision of life-saving supervised consumption services are introduced.

MSTH and LOPS argue that the Guidelines frustrate the federal government’s purpose behind the changes to the laws around supervised consumption sites in 2017 to make them easier to open and access. They also allege that the Guidelines breach sections 2(a), 2(b), 7, 8, 12, and 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The outcome of this lawsuit will have life and death impacts on individuals who use substances and access supervised consumption services in Alberta.

The Government of Alberta has a teams of lawyers and unlimited resources to defend against the action. In contrast, MSTH and LOPS are community-run non-profit societies with limited financial means.

We need your help to level the playing field.

Please donate what you can to our legal fund. Any amount you can share will help ensure that Albertans who depend on supervised consumption site can continue to access these lifesaving and life sustaining services.

1. Statement of Claim

2. Complaint Letter to Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta

Statement of iOAT Patients on AHS Decision to Continue iOAT Therapy in Existing Form in Alberta

Today, we received word that the iOAT program will be preserved for its current patients and that an ongoing review will determine if new patients can be accepted into the program in the future. This is incredible, life-saving news for our clients.

On behalf of my clients, I want to thank everyone who advocated for these patients - their families, the addictions experts who weighed in on the case and guided it through, and the medical staff at AHS who never stopped caring deeply for their welfare. This point can’t be understated – this program has been highly politicized by the provincial government (Associate Minister Luan called the program “a mess” in the legislature recently, citing no evidence), but advocates and medical professionals have persisted in a fight for the lives of these patients and have worked tirelessly to ensure they received the medical treatment they need.

Lastly, all the credit possible needs to go to my clients. They are all profiles in courage. Despite the uncertainty and all the difficult moments in this process, they stood up for themselves, their rights and their own lives, enduring the moral and ethical aspersions cast by their own government. There is a special place in this world for people who refuse to stand down or give up the fight to protect the lives of others when no one else will.

This is not the end of this fight, however. We will continue to keep watch over the continued funding of iOAT for these clients and continue to advocate for funding for new clients. This medical treatment saves lives and is an important tool as we fight a battle against opioid overdoses that has escalated in 2020 and into 2021.

iOAT Patients Appeal Injunction Dismissal

Today, we filed an appeal against the decision made by the Court of Queen’s Bench last week denying our injunction to keep the iOAT program operating while our lawsuit is before the courts. The court has acknowledged that we have an appropriate basis in law to file the suit, and could therefore keep program open if we were successful. It is not unreasonable to ask that a life saving program be allowed to continue while its existence is addressed in court.

We’re filing this appeal to correct errors in law and fact in the ruling – including a specific section that rejected the testimony of recognized experts in addictions in favour of anecdotal “common sense.” If anyone knows anything about serious addictions issues, you know that very little of it makes common sense. It is often very difficult to understand why those suffering with addictions make the choices that they do, which was the whole point of bringing a volume of expert testimony to the original filing.

Programs like iOAT exist to provide the most severely addicted patients with a program that works for them outside of other common programs. Keeping this program going is not a matter of comfort or convenience for my clients, it is an attempt to save a treatment-of-last resort, designed by health care professionals, that worked for these clients when everything else failed. To deny them this treatment is to reject the guidance of medical professionals and addictions experts and put the lives of my clients at material risk.

While my clients have instructed me to file the appeal, they are doing so with a significant personal and financial risk. The province has signaled that they will be pursuing recovery of court costs from the injunction. We have been very public about resorting to a fundraising campaign that allows us to pay for the various filing and administrative costs that a case like this requires – these clients are not well-heeled or family-funded, and as counsel, I’m only being compensated from any excess funds after these costs are paid.

 That the government is planning recovering costs from this group of the most vulnerable plaintiffs in the province is clear message from this government to any vulnerable population: Don’t challenge us. Don’t take us to court. Don’t shine a light on your own suffering. If you do, we’ll make you pay. My clients are using the courts as a last resort in a fight for their life. After they are made an example of, what group won’t think twice about daring to stand up for their rights if they know that will paint a financial target on their back from a defendant with a seemingly unlimited budget?

In any case, my clients are going to persist, with a hope that the Court of Appeal will review the evidence we have presented and fully consider the impact allowing iOAT closing will have. I applaud my clients for their bravery and willingness to stand up for themselves, but they simply have no other choice or treatment option available to them.

Law as a Public Space

Sarah is in her early 20s, a single mother to an energetic 5-year-old. If you were to meet her, you would be struck by her unassuming presence and kindness. You would never suspect that Sarah is waging an extraordinary legal challenge against the Alberta government that may reshape Canadian law.

Sarah spent much of her childhood and teenage years in government care. The abuse and neglect that led to Sarah’s apprehension only continued in the province’s care and she developed alcohol and drug dependencies to manage her trauma.

However, at the age of 19 and with a young daughter in tow, Sarah was determined to change her life. As a former child in care, she qualified for a government program that entitled youth in her circumstances to wraparound emotional and financial supports until the age of 24 to aid their transition to independent adulthood. Through the assistance of a dedicated social worker, who is Sarah’s only form of stable emotional support, she managed to pursue higher education with the aim of becoming an Indigenous liaison, creating an alcohol and drug free home for her daughter, and stopping engaging in sex work, an industry she was forced to enter as a child but continued to return to against her wishes because she considered it to be the only skill she had to support her family.

Sarah’s strength and determination, and the assistance she received through the provincial program, allowed her to overcome the structural barriers that were stacked against her from birth. Unfortunately, a new government in Edmonton decided to truncate access to the benefits to the age of 22, and refused to grandfather Sarah and other former children in care under the initial version of the program with the changes. They would have less time than they were originally promised to acquire the skills and capacity needed to become self-reliant adults.

Although Sarah has made significant strides to achieving independent adulthood, she remains in a fragile place and is not positioned to be in the world on her own at the age of 22. She fears that if the legislative changes are to take effect, she will revert back to alcohol and drug use, return to survival sex work, and perhaps lose her daughter to the same system she survived.

With no other options, Sarah decided to take the government to court, asserting that the legislative amendments to the program would breach her Charter rights. Sarah hoped that the law would provide a solution, some justice to her and the hundreds of other young, vulnerable Albertans who would be affected by the changes.

However, the challenge for Canadian law is whether it is capable of recognizing the value of Sarah’s life to shield her from the harms she will experience through the denial of supports.

———

The law is a public space that occupies a conceptual and physical space within our society. It consists of the rules that we are to live by and the institutions that ensure we do, and governs all aspects of our lives. It defines the ability of the state to intrude in our lives, regulates the relationships we have with others, and informs our actions from birth to death.

However, although the law encompasses us all, it was not designed with all of us in mind. It has always skewed towards particular interests. At Canada’s founding, the law reflected a White, male, heterosexual, Christian worldview. The ability to vote, marry, or purchase property depended on whether you belonged to this group. If you didn’t, you were excluded from the law and denied access to the most basic entitlements of our democracy. And through exclusion, those who do not belong were told that their lives mattered less than those in society who were able to shape that public space in their own reflection.

As time went on, a richer, more representative sense of democracy took hold in Canada, and the law came to also embody that transformation. Divorce, child custody, and matrimonial property laws came to recognize that women hold and deserve equal status before and under the law. Individuals of the same sex were permitted not only to marry but also have families. Courts accepted that Indigenous people lived in complex, distinct political communities that held exclusive ownership to the lands that became this country, and in many instances, retained those rights after Canada was established.

For some this has been a welcoming trend, as the legitimacy of our legal order depends on it reflecting the people, experiences, and aspirations of those who make up this country. That a young, Indigenous woman from the west who grew up in government care can find her place in that realm as much as a Bay Street banker who never questioned his ability to access or be reflected in the law.

However, for others, these developments are unwelcome. The democratization of the public space that is law threatens their understanding of and position in this country. The societal progress achieved through the law represents a departure from tradition, denigration of certain values, and undermines their status in society. They decry “judicial activism” and champion “the rule of law” but mean other things by those words. They promote a hollowed, limited understanding of the law that is premised on a narrow conception of justice that reflects their own self-interest.

———

I practice law on behalf of people who have historically been or are currently excluded from the law. The precariously housed, prisoners, drug users, survivors of sexual violence, and others who are more often than not racialized or Indigenous, and in most cases, unable to hire a lawyer to advance their interests through the law.

I act for Sarah in her legal action. In the parlance of the law, I “speak” for her in the legal realm. However, that doesn’t mean I can fully understand or convey her experiences and aspirations to a court. Instead, my job as a lawyer is to do my best to translate Sarah’s lived experience into the law, and then navigate the law and legal process on her behalf towards the objective she desires.

One of the major challenges in Sarah’s lawsuit is whether the law recognizes her claim. Specifically, whether she can even turn to the courts when the government cancels a program that people in her circumstances depend on to live safe and sustainable lives. Although an initial court found that it may, the question is before a special panel of the Alberta Court of Appeal, as it challenges our traditional understanding of the law or raises issues never before considered. 

As Sarah’s conduit to the law, I facilitate access to this public space in the hope that it will deliver to her some semblance of justice, and that over time, the law will bend to the reality of people like her. That they will be able to access the law with greater ease and familiarity, and have their stories be accepted and reflected within the law as its own.

This broader pursuit around ensuring that the law accommodates the most marginalized and vulnerable in our society isn’t about ends but rather about realizing the democratic ideals that are foundational to this country. Canada is a multi-juridical country, encompassing the English common law, French civil law, and various Indigenous legal orders, that is also subject to a bilingual and multicultural framework. We live in a dynamic, ever-evolving, diverse society. Binding ourselves to a rigid, static conception of the law that reflects a narrow worldview does not further our commitment to the robust democratic ideals that we claim to hold. Ideals that reject the bankrupt notion that justice permits the will of the majority to terrorize the disenfranchised, whether they be women and girls, racialized and queer people, Indigenous communities, people living with opioid use disorder, or former children in care who simply want a fair chance at a life that is better than the one they were born into.

We must embrace an understanding of the law that recognizes the dynamism and diversity of the society it governs, and that as a public space, it is meant for us all and not the privileged few.

Response to Alberta's Claim that Alternatives to iOAT are Available

A response to the Alberta government’s claim that patients of the Injectable Opioid Agonist Treatment (“iOAT”) are able to access alternative treatments through Alberta Health Services that will be effective as iOAT, and therefore there will be no disruption to the care and treatment received by the Plaintiffs and other iOAT patients.

“Injectable opioid agonist treatment is the sole treatment that has proven effective for patients enrolled in iOAT.  When enrolling in this treatment program patients were not advised that the government or AHS intended to end the program. The arbitrary and cruel decision to close these clinics and cut patients off of this life-saving treatment places patients in grave danger of relapse and overdose death. This risk can not be overstated, and a number of previous studies have shown that in instances where patients are forced to transition from iOAT, the outcome is a return to illegal drug use at pre-treatment levels. While the government continues to fund oral medications for opioid use disorder, these medications are not an effective for long term treatment of patients with treatment refractory opioid use disorder. Many jurisdictions in Canada are working to scale up access to iOAT treatment as part of the response to the historically unprecedented overdose epidemic. Alberta has chosen to scale back options for patients just as we’ve recorded the worst ever quarter on record for overdose deaths.”

— Plaintiffs

The Partnership Families' Response to the Mediation Proposal of Habitat Edmonton

The Partnership Families engaged in a dispute with Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society (Habitat Edmonton) over changes to the organization’s housing program provide the following statement in response to the mediation proposal issued by Habitat Edmonton on June 30, 2020.

From the moment that Habitat for Humanity - Edmonton Society proposed changes to its housing program, the Partnership Families have attempted to work with the organization to reach a fair and just resolution that would not result in the families being evicted from their homes. At every turn, Habitat Edmonton has refused our requests, and informed the families that it would not be “opening the Habitat program to debate or meeting as a group to discuss individual homeownership issues.” 

Although the Partnership Families are optimistic that the change in Habitat Edmonton’s position could potentially result in a fair and just outcome for the families, over the past months, they have seen Habitat Edmonton issue numerous public assurances of committing to work with the families and not forcibly evicting them from their homes, only to do the opposite and push the families to the brink of homelessness. 

The Partnership Families are committed to working with Habitat Edmonton, and ensuring the true spirit of “partnership” that is supposed to inform the relationship between the parties. 

For this to occur at this particularly difficult time for the Partnership Families, the Partnership Families propose that Habitat Edmonton commits to the following public assurances as a condition to mediation that will ensure there is public and donor accountability of what happens next:

1. The mediation involves all of the Partnership Families, including those who have signed the releases imposed on them by Habitat Edmonton.

2. The mediation for all the Partnership Families occur concurrently, with representatives from the Partnership Families and Habitat Edmonton, and not in an individual manner with Habitat Edmonton meeting directly and in private with each family.

3. The mediation be conducted by an independent third party approved by both parties.

4. All evictions, equity clawbacks, eviction notices, equity clawback notices, settlement proposals, releases agreements, and related offers, agreements, and notices made to the Partnership Families, be cancelled and set aside to allow the parties to engage in mediation in good-faith without any undue pressure on the families. 

5. The vacant or vacated homes of the Partnership Families not be given by Habitat Edmonton to other families until the mediation is resolved. 

6. The Partnership Families continue to make the payments that they are currently making to Habitat Edmonton for occupying the homes, and adhere to all other conditions that the families agreed to follow to occupy the homes. 

7. The acknowledgement that any change to the housing model and whether it is imposed on a specific family should be the sole discretion of that family, and no one else. If the result of the mediation is an altered version of the housing model, then each individual family has the discretion to accept or reject it. 

8. The parties enter into a formal order or agreement staying or suspending the legal proceeding until the mediation process is complete. 

9. The presence of independent community observers at the mediation to witness and help facilitate a resolution.

Our lawyer has already communicated this information to Habitat Edmonton’s lawyer, and we are awaiting a response. 

The Partnership Families share Habitat Edmonton’s commitment to resolve this dispute in a manner that is “as fairly and quickly as possible.” However, the primary concern to us is fairness, and we will continue to take action to ensure that occurs.   

Statement from the Partnership Families in its Dispute with Habitat Edmonton

The following is a statement prepared by the Partnership Families who are engaged in a dispute with Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society over changes to the organization’s housing program and that will involve their removal from their Habitat homes:

The Partnership Families moved into their homes under a housing agreement with Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society that would eventually comprise of a 0% mortgage from the organization to cover the purchase of a Habitat home. Many of the Partnership Families are immigrants and refugees, without family ties in Edmonton or a financial safety net; many are racialized; many are not fully fluent in English; all are parents, some of them single parents; some are disabled, some elderly, some unemployed or underemployed. Each family met the criteria Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society set out for joining their program, and believed their housing future to be secure. In the fall of 2019, Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society decided that one way they could service their own organizational debt was to offload it onto the families they helped by changing the housing agreement with each Partnership Family to require 50% of their mortgage to now come from a credit union.

Prior to this unexpected and significant change, Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society would periodically gather the families together to update them on issues related to their housing, which allowed neighbours to translate and work together to understand community issues. But when it came to changing the terms of the mortgage model, Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society decided to go individually to each family to ask them to sign new agreements, despite knowing that many have limited English and are legally unsophisticated, and despite knowing that many would be unable to qualify for mortgages with a local credit union and would ultimately be evicted from their homes. This was the first of many instances in this process where Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society preyed upon the very humanity they profess to serve and protect, using a divide and conquer strategy that time and again perpetuates racial and social injustices.

Remarkably, the Partnership Families organized and obtained legal counsel. It was through this organizing that families came to understand what exactly was being asked of them, and how Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society had mismanaged its organizational finances and with this new mortgage model actually financially benefited from their eviction rather than their continued tenancy.

Over the course of these proceedings, the Partnership Families have been united by their concerns for each other, their housing future, and finding a fair and just solution with Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society. Unfortunately, Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society has not shared these concerns, having to be legally ordered or publicly shamed into delaying the eviction of families during Christmas and the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, all while refusing to enter mediation regarding the new mortgage model. The most recent legal action resulted in a court authorizing the removal of the Partnership Families from their homes after July 31, 2020 (but recognized that the Partnership Families had a basis to sue Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society for changing the original agreement), but this was not good enough for Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society. They have once again been approaching families one by one, without legal counsel, or even translators or neighbours to help, to try to get families to drop out of the lawsuit in return for information about how to secure their housing and equity and prevent imminent eviction. They have told families that if they agree to drop out of the lawsuit and leave by June 30, 2020, they can have approximately 75% of the equity savings that is stored in their homes; if they agree to leave by July 31, 2020, they can have approximately 50% of the equity savings that is stored in their homes; and if they refuse to leave they will receive no equity savings that they contributed to and which is stored in their homes and will be evicted from them any time after July 31, 2020. Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society is using the many vulnerabilities of these families, linguistic, financial and social, against them to get them to sign agreements that put the security of the charity above that of the people they profess to help. This is uncharitable, immoral and unethical.

This week, Habitat for Humanity International released a statement condemning the actions of Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society, saying, as the Partnership Families have also argued, that the new mortgage model should only have been applied to incoming families, and that Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society should agree to enter mediation, something the Partnership Families have been open to from the beginning. Now, after months of holding these families in housing and legal limbo, Habitat for Humanity Edmonton says they too are open to entering into mediation, but only “with those [families] who have not determined how they wish to proceed.”

The Partnership Families are ready to engage in a fair and just mediation process, but it cannot be fair and just when Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society will not engage with all of the families because they intimidated some of us, with threats of eviction and loss of equity while our chosen legal counsel was not there, into “determining how we wished to proceed." The mediation process cannot be fair and just when imminent eviction on July 31, 2020, and complete loss of equity hang over the process. At every turn Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society has chosen to use our vulnerability to unstable housing against us in order to maintain power and control in this process, going against their own mission statements, and those of Habitat for Humanity Canada and Habitat for Humanity International. We want to find a fair and just way for all of us to stay in the homes we helped to build. We ask that Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society enter into a fair and just mediation process that includes all the Partnership Families and does not hold imminent eviction and loss of equity over our heads when we come to the table.

The Stories of Partnership Families

Over the past few weeks, Edmontonians and people across Canada and around the world have reached out to learn more about the dispute between the Partnership Families and Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society, including the experience of the families. Below are the experiences of three Partnership Families.

Family #1

Mom and Dad immigrated to Canada from Pakistan and had trouble having their credentials recognized in their new home. They had three young children, and faced difficulties finding stable employment and housing.

Eventually, they came across the housing program offered by Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society, and were accepted in the program and moved into their Habitat home in 2017.

The family worked hard to complete all the obligations that Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society imposed on them, and did so by September 2018, allowing them to purchase their Habitat home at 0% interest rate.

Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society informed the family that they would own their Habitat home shortly, but the organization needed some time to confirm the details. The family trusted Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society, and believed that it would honour the agreement that it had with the family.

In April 2019, the Dad suffers a massive heart attack. Dad can no longer work and is on disability. Mom is responsible for the domestic work in the home, and taking care of the family’s three young children, but now is responsible to care for Dad.

In September 2019, Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society informs Mom and Dad that the housing program is changing, and the family will have to obtain mortgage financing from a bank for half the purchase price of the home. Dad becomes stressed and his health deteriorates, as the family will not be able to qualify for bank financing any longer, as the family’s sole source of income is Dad’s disability supports.

In November 2019, Dad dies suddenly. Mom and the children are in shock.

Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society informs the family that they are ineligible for the new mortgage model because Dad has died and there is no employment income coming into the household. Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society CEO states that while the “circumstances are terribly tragic as she has recently lost her husband,” Mom “is not eligible to be offered a Purchase Agreement by Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society by reason that there is no income earner in her household.”

Family #2

Mom and Dad immigrated to Canada from Somalia and have five children. Their eldest suffers from Corne-De Lung Syndrome, a serious and debilitating condition that causes major physical and cognitive impairments. He is confined to a wheelchair and requires round-the-clock care, and is 100% dependent on others to carry out all basic tasks, such as bathing, dressing, using the washroom, and eating.

The son is extremely ill, and is frequently hospitalized for long durations in the intensive care unit. Mom and Dad know that he can pass away at anytime.

Mom and Dad have to take time off work frequently to be with their son in the hospital, and to take care of their four other children.

The family lives in a two bedroom rental apartment that does not meet the needs of a family of 7, let alone one with a son with serious health and accessibility issues.

Mom and Dad were referred to Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society, where they were immediately accepted into the housing program. Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society promised the family that if they performed their obligations under the program, it would design and build a house for the family that was customized to the needs of their son. This includes a barrier free washroom and hoists to help lift the son to place him in bed or in the shower.

Mom and Dad were elated, and considered what Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society to be a blessing from God. In difficult circumstances, Mom and Dad performed the obligations imposed on the family:

Completing the obligations imposed on my family as a Partnership Family have been extremely difficult given the medical situation of my son over the past few years. My son was in the intensive care unit for 3 months, and we did not know if he would make it.

However, under the Housing Scheme, my family must not only complete 500 hours of sweat equity work for the benefit of Habitat, but complete at least 24 hours a month. For the period of time that my son was in the ICU, I used to spend my time with him, and then rush out to do my sweat equity work to ensure that I never fell behind. I would often leave for my shifts not knowing if I would see my son again. I did it because I knew that the Housing Scheme could transform my family’s life, and I didn’t want to lose the opportunity

Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society designed and constructed a home for the family that met the needs of their son, and incorporated Mom and Dad as part of the design process. The family was scheduled to move into the home during the week of Christmas in December 2019.

However, in November 2019, Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society informed the family that they would not be allowed to move into their home unless the agreed to the new housing program. Mom and Dad pleaded with Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society that they wouldn’t qualify for a bank mortgage, and would not be able to receive the home.

Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society informed the Mom and Dad that it did not care. The only way that the family would receive the home is if Mom and Dad obtained a mortgage for half the value of the home. If they didn’t, they would lose the home and their dream of stable and secure housing.

Family #3

Mom is a survivor of domestic abuse, and is a Black single, working mother with three children under the age of 11.

Mom’s youngest has expressive and receptive language delay, and is high needs and requires constant one-on-one care.

Mom works as an education assistant and earns less than $36,000.00 per year. From what Mom earns, she has to pay for the basic needs of her family, and for specialized day care and supports for her son.

After living in government housing for years, Mom applied to Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society’s housing program in 2017. Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society selected Mom, finding that her experience reflected the struggles that they wanted to help families with by providing them stable, secure housing.

The family moved in to their Habitat home in 2018, and worked hard to perform all of her obligations to be eligible for the no-interest mortgage. By December 2019, Mom had met all the requirements to obtain the mortgage financing promised by Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society.

However, Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society informed Mom that they would not be offering the family the housing model that it initially promised them. Instead, Mom would have to qualify for mortgage financing for half the value of the home. If Mom failed to qualify for the mortgage, she would be removed from the home and the housing program.

Mom does not make enough to qualify for mortgage financing. Mom applied for the bank mortgage and was denied, and Habitat for Humanity – Edmonton Society has informed Mom that she must leave her home with her kids by July 31, 2020.

Mom does not know where she will live after the family is removed from their Habitat home.

Support of BLM YEG

The Partnership Families appreciate the support of Black Lives Matter YEG. It is likely through Black Lives Matter YEG’s advocacy that you have heard about our struggle. This reveals the importance of grassroots, citizen-led support organizations to address issues like our in Edmonton.

For more information Black Lives Matter YEG solidarity work with the Partnership Families, please visit the chapter’s website here.

Delays in Alberta's Civil Justice System

My letter to The Honourable Minister Kathleen Ganley, Alberta's Minister of Justice and Solicitor General, about delays to the province's civil justice system caused by the shortage of Masters and judicial support staff. 

The civil justice system is reaching a crisis point in Alberta.

One reason is the shortage of Masters in Alberta. Masters are the frontline decision-makers for civil matters in the province, and are responsible for issuing vital procedural and substantive legal decisions in lawsuits prior to trial.

The failure of the Province of Alberta to hire Masters and judicial support staff to accommodate the civil needs of Albertans has led to lengthy delays for their matters to be heard, including for procedural applications and summary dispositions. The latter civil procedures are designed to facilitate the progression of civil claims to resolution in an expeditious manner. However, with the shortage of Masters and judicial support staff to consider these procedural applications and summary dispositions, Albertans often have to wait for upwards of a year for a court date to have these matters heard. This delay pushes trials back further, and does not facilitate settlement discussions between parties, as they often wait for these pre-trial determinations to resolve matters.

(Read the full letter here).

Nanda Law at the Supreme Court of Canada in April

Nanda Law will be representing interveners in two separate appeals before the Supreme Court of Canada this month that address major public law issues.

In Jean-François Morasse v. Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, the Supreme Court of Canada will consider whether statements made by Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, a leader of the student protests that gripped Quebec in 2012, constitute contempt of court for contravening an interim interlocutory injunction preventing individuals from obstructing or impeding access to university classes. Nanda Law, along with Ranjan Agarwal and Faiz Lalani of Bennett Jones LLP, will be representing the intervener Alberta Public Interest Research Group (APIRG), a student advocacy organization based at the University of Alberta. APIRG will be arguing that the contempt power, which is the inherent jurisdiction of the provincial superior courts, must be exercised in a manner that respects Charter values. In circumstances where contempt proceedings impinge the Charter value of free expression, the court should employ the Dagenais framework to ensure that the right to democratic expression is sufficiently protected. 

In Musqueam Indian Band v. Musqueam Indian Band Board of Review, et al., the Supreme Court of Canada will interpret the meaning of "by the band" in the Musqueam Indian Band bylaw that governs the assessment and taxation of Musqueam reserve lands. The appeal deals with the same piece of reserve land that was in dispute in R v Guerin, and involves how and to what extent the Musqueam can tax the portion of its reserve lands that comprise the Shaughnessy Golf and Country Club. Specifically, whether restrictions imposed on reserve lands "by the band" encompass restrictions directly imposed by the Musqueam, or restrictions imposed by the Musqueam and the Crown on behalf of the Musqueam, including the 1958 lease entered into by the Crown with the Shaughnessy Golf and Country Club.

Nanda Law represents the Council for the Advancement of Native Development Officers (CANDO). Cando will be arguing that the purpose and intent behind the legislative framework that provides First Nations the mechanism through which to tax reserve lands must be incorporated into any interpretation of the Musqueam bylaw and what is meant by the term "by the band" in the provision in dispute. The purpose and intent of the legislative framework, which is a dynamic collaboration between Parliament, legislatures, and First Nations communities, is to foster the principles of self-government by providing First Nations greater control and agency over reserve lands. 

Nanda Law specializes in appeals, representing both the primary parties and interveners in a range of different public law matters. Please contact our office if you would like to retain Nanda Law in your public law appeal.