2024 Chernos Contest Details

Option One

In response to complaints from the public of police brutality, the City of Calgary has made it mandatory for police officers to wear body cameras while on duty. An officer wearing the camera responded to a call at a private residence. Days later, residents of the home called the police service, concerned that their identity and personal information were recorded by the police in the privacy of their own home. Do you think that the police body-worn cameras should be running at all times? If so, why? If not, why not? Who should decide when the cameras should be turned on/off and under what circumstances? What rights, freedoms and other issues are at stake?

Option Two

A provincial government recently enacted the “20% Emissions Act (2023)” which repealed the “40% Carbon Emissions Act” of 2018.  The “40% Carbon Emissions Act” of 2018 had set out an emissions reduction target of 40% below 2005 CO2 levels by 2030.  By contrast, the “20% Emissions Act” of 2023 implemented a new, lower target of 20% emissions reduction below 2005 levels by 2030.  In response, a group comprised mainly of young environmental activists filed an application against the province, calling into question the constitutionality of the new “20% Emissions Act” of 2023 and arguing that it violated Charter rights by not taking climate change seriously enough.  What Charter rights would be at play in this scenario? How might the courts approach this type of lawsuit at present? How should Canadian courts approach the issue of climate change in the future, particularly with respect to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Option Three

The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) released a new policy guideline that outlines a procedure for border screening agents to demand social media passwords from travellers (Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, etc.). The goal of the policy is to enhance public safety. If a traveller refuses to provide their passwords, border agents can subject them to additional screening, detention, denial of entry (if they are a non-citizen), or criminal charges. Is the CBSA policy fair? Why or why not? What rights and freedoms are at issue?

Option Four

A young woman named Shirley has been using her TikTok account to call out an anti-abortion group called Life Begins Now.  In some videos – including one that went viral and garnered one million views – she suggested registering online for Life Begins Now protests, with no intention of attending.  A court then issued an order forbidding Shirley from engaging in this form of digital advocacy. The order prohibited anyone from reposting Shirley’s TikToks, registering for a Life Begins Now event without intending to attend, or encouraging others to engage in the same activities.  It does not appear that Shirley’s online tactics prevented genuine participants from registering or attending any of Life Begins Now’s anti-abortion protests.  Was the court’s decision fair? Why or why not? What Charter rights are at issue here? Which rights are in conflict?