Do governments have to pay out on their contracts?

October 31st, 2013 by Laura Bowman

In light of debates about the real cost of government contracts, including the $14-billion fighter jets and the $1-billion Ontario gas plant cancellation, it is worth noting what the principles are that govern government contracts.

In principle, the legislatures of each province and territory (Parliament federally) have to approve all appropriations to or payments from the government’s big “one size fits all” bank account, the consolidated revenue fund. This is because of the provisions in the Canadian Constitution, and because of standing orders dealing with money bills in each jurisdiction. In practice, over time the legislative oversight of budgetary matters has weakened (mostly through changes to those same standing orders). These are dealt with through budgets presented first through the speech from the throne to maintain the fiction that all budgets are recommended by the Crown.

This raises an interesting constitutional question: Can the government of the day bind future legislatures to spend money through entering into contracts, whether they be collective agreements, or ordinary contracts to expend money over multiple years? The simple answer to this question is they should not be able to. The principle underlying this is that the government of the day should not, at least in theory, have the power to tell future elected representatives what budgets to pass or not pass or to bind them to do so.

The real answer is more complicated.

Read more on rabble.ca

When in doubt, report: Castonguay Blasting upheld at SCC

October 21st, 2013 by Laura Bowman

Last week the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision in the Castonguay Blasting case, which I have previously written about.  Despite numerous critics of the Court of Appeal’s decision from the environmental law bar, the Supreme Court made the right decision and upheld the Court of Appeal’s ruling that all discharges of contaminants are reportable under the Ontario Environmental Protection Act.

Continue reading “When in doubt, report: Castonguay Blasting upheld at SCC”

Iler Campbell at ONPHA conference

October 18th, 2013 by Iler Campbell

The Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association annual conference got underway yesterday and Iler Campbell was well represented.

Celia Chandler kicked things off, leading a half-day course yesterday on the Human Rights Commission’s Policy on Competing Human Rights. She will be back on Saturday for a session titled “Help! I’ve received a human rights complaint.”

Brian Iler and Shelina Ali presented today on the new Not- for-Profit Corporations Act: Updates for Housing Providers. And Laura Bowman presented on “Everything You Need to Know About Tenancy Credit Reports”. Finally, Laura will take part in an LTB mock hearing tomorrow.

Iler Campbell’s own Tools conference, coming up on November 20th, will offer a chance to catch a few of these topics if you missed them at ONPHA. Celia will be presenting on competing human rights and Shelina will be presenting a talk titled “ONCA/CNCA – Are You Ready?” Check out toolsconference.ca for the full lineup.

Nesting dolls of “directly affected” in federal law under judicial review

October 18th, 2013 by Laura Bowman

Recently, the Federal Court of Appeal released a decision on a procedural issue in Forest Ethics Advocacy Association v. Canada (National Energy Board), 2013 FCA 236 (CanLII).  Forest Ethics is suing the government over recent changes to the National Energy Board Act which it claims “unreasonably restrict public comment on project proposals.” At issue is a new section introduced in one of the large conservative budget bills which limits participation on issues before the National Energy Board (NEB) to those who are “directly affected.”

In the decision, the Federal Court of Appeal had to decide whether Enbridge and Valero – two oil and gas companies – would have standing to become respondents or intervenors in the case against the government.  Ironically, the court had to interpret section 303 of the Federal Courts Act which also uses the “directly affected” test.

Continue reading “Nesting dolls of “directly affected” in federal law under judicial review”

Reparation after the Bangladesh garment factory disaster

September 26th, 2013 by Kirsten Iler

In the wake of the Rana Plaza factory collapse in Bangladesh this April, the corporations who use the factory expressed grave concern for the deceased workers and their families and committed to helping them.

Built on swampland outside the capital city of Dhaka and housing five factories, when the Rana Plaza building collapsed, 1,100 workers were killed and 1,900 injured. Most of the workers, and thus the victims, were women.

Although one of the world’s worst industrial disasters, to date only one retailer has given compensation to the victims of the Rana Plaza disaster.

No agreement was reached at the recent Geneva meetings to address compensation, which many called a failure. Meanwhile, trade unions report that many victims and their families are barely surviving and may lose their homes.

Read more on rabble.ca

Co-op housing eviction reform bill passes third reading

September 25th, 2013 by Celia Chandler

Bill 14, which will reform the evictions process for co-operative housing passed its third reading on Tuesday and will be brought into force at a date to be determined. The law will take co-op evictions out of the courts and place them under the umbrella of the LTB.

Reaching this point, has taken a long time. MPP Michael Prue, speaking on Monday, recalled its genesis in 2004 and the many roadblocks it has faced along the way:

Between the time when it was promised by the government [2007], we’ve had prorogations, we’ve had elections being called, we’ve had bills reintroduced, we’ve had stalling, we’ve had filibusters, we’ve had everything else you can possibly imagine, only to come full circle today, where everybody is in approval of it.

MPP Bob Delaney perhaps summarized many people’s feelings when he said “It’s now time to stop hearing the sound of our voices in the Legislature, get this bill to committee, get it passed and get it enacted.”

As they were throughout these long years, CHF Ontario officials were present for the debate.