Subscribe to our RSS feed
Find us on Facebook
Follow us on TwitterOn December 20, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada released a landmark decision on Canada’s prostitution laws (Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford). This decision represents a huge victory for Canada’s sex workers by recognizing that the existing legal framework increases the risk of harm to the lives and safety of individuals working in the industry. The decision has, however, quickly become controversial with anti-prostitution advocates vigorously arguing that the Court has effectively endorsed the exploitation of women. This criticism is misdirected because the Bedford decision is not about whether prostitution should be legal in Canada — prostitution has always been legal here. If you don’t like it, complain to Parliament.
Supreme Court ruling stirs national debate on sex work
January 6th, 2014 by Priya SarinThe Responsible Housing Provider — Trespass Authorization: A Possible Tool for Housing Providers
December 6th, 2013 by Lauren BlumasHousing providers which have had difficulty controlling bad behaviour of non-occupants on their property (ie. loitering or criminal activity) may want to consider signing a Trespass to Property Authorization form with their local Police Services Division. The form provides authorization to police to remove or arrest anyone that does not live and is improperly on the premises. Essentially, the form enables police to act as an agent for housing providers in enforcing the Trespass to Property Act. Once signed, officers may include the housing provider’s property on their patrol route, moving along non-occupant trespassers on their own initiative.
The particular rules governing the authorization vary from division to division however they are always revocable. This means the authorization can be in place for a short period of time where an increased police presence is necessary.
For many housing providers, this type of police authorization will not be desirable in addressing anti-social behaviour. On the other hand, particularly for those providers struggling to curb criminal activity on the premises, the authorization may be a helpful tool alongside eviction procedures against occupants enabling or engaging in the bad behaviour. In either case increased police presence may be perceived as intrusive by the occupants and the interests of the community at large must be carefully weighed prior to signing the authorization.
If you are interested in obtaining a form, make the request to your local police services division.
Moving away from the transport of dangerous goods toward safer, low-carbon solutions
December 4th, 2013 by Paula BoutisThe Lac‑Mégantic derailment in Quebec last July involved the transportation of 72 tank cars of crude oil. This derailment caused the confirmed deaths of 42 people, with five more missing and presumed dead. Approximately half the downtown core was destroyed. It is one of the most significant train disasters in Canadian history.
This event and other train derailments that have since followed have proponents of pipelines using these occasions to expound the view that pipelines are the safest way to move fossil fuels. As the argument goes, we should be allowing new pipelines and the hold‑up of their approvals will only force the transportation of dangerous goods onto a more dangerous form of transportation, rail.
On Tuesday, the Auditor General’s 2013 Fall Report looked in part at rail safety. But it did not specifically look at the Lac‑Mégantic accident or any other rail accidents. For that, we must go back to a December 2011 report by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.
Do governments have to pay out on their contracts?
October 31st, 2013 by Laura BowmanIn 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.
When in doubt, report: Castonguay Blasting upheld at SCC
October 21st, 2013 by Laura BowmanLast 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 CampbellThe 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.
|
Older Entries |
