The people of Alberta are tired of Canadians from other provinces taking their

construction jobs and so the legislature of Alberta has enacted a law saying that from
now on only people who have lived in Alberta for more than two years can get a job
in the Alberta construction industry. Mark lives in Ontario but he has been seriously
considering moving to Alberta. Is there any argument Mark could make in a court to
allow him to move to Alberta and get a job in the construction industry? If so, what
arguments could the legislature of Alberta make to stop him from being successful in
court? Who do you think would be successful if the issue ended up in court, and
why?

Shawn/Brett/Anthony -- what are the legal problems in using aliases?

i do not know that's why i am asking

somebody answer this question for me please

I'm sorry, but Jiskha doesn't have any regular tutors who are legal experts.

really that's sucks

why u have sections for business and law
huh

Try your search engine to find out about Canadian employment laws and citizenship.

All Jiskha tutors are volunteers. No legal experts have volunteered to be tutors here.

And note that if you are asking about Canadian law, the references I provided in earlier questions are about United States law, not Canadian. Again, use your search engine to find out more for yourself.

If Mark wants to challenge the law enacted by the legislature of Alberta, he could potentially make an argument based on constitutional rights. There are several rights protected under the Canadian Constitution that Mark could potentially invoke in his case.

1. Mobility Rights: Section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right of every citizen to enter, remain in, and leave any province. Mark could argue that the law infringes on his mobility rights by imposing residency requirements that hinder his ability to find employment in the construction industry in Alberta.

2. Equality Rights: Section 15 of the Canadian Charter protects individuals from discrimination based on various grounds, including place of residence. Mark could argue that the residency requirement in the law discriminates against him as an individual from outside Alberta, and that it is not based on any reasonable or justifiable grounds.

The legislature of Alberta, on the other hand, would likely put forward arguments to defend the law:

1. Provincial Jurisdiction: The legislature may argue that the regulation of employment within the province falls under its jurisdiction and that it has the authority to enact laws to protect the interests of its residents, including job opportunities in the construction industry.

2. Economic Justification: The legislature may contend that the law is necessary to address the concerns of Alberta residents who feel that construction jobs are being taken by individuals from other provinces. They may argue that the law aims to protect and prioritize the employment opportunities for Alberta residents, which in turn benefits the economic well-being of the province.

The success of either party in court will depend on the specific arguments presented and the interpretation of constitutional rights by the court. The court will weigh the importance of maintaining a balance between individual rights and the legitimate objectives of the legislature in enacting the law. Ultimately, it is difficult to determine who would be successful without knowing the specific circumstances and the rulings of the court.