Posts Tagged ‘Pro Bono column’

Whose freedom of expression is the Harper government protecting?

January 30th, 2014 by Shelina Ali

Last week, in Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s address to the Israeli Knesset, he equated criticisms of the Israeli state and its policies with anti-Semitism. He stated that “most disgracefully of all, some openly call Israel an apartheid state,” continuing on to say that “it is nothing short of sickening.”

Mr. Harper’s strong condemnation of individuals who criticize Israel’s policies and practices raises serious concerns about his government’s commitment to protecting political speech in Canada. His comments should be seen in light of his government’s claw‑back of hate speech legislation in the name of freedom of expression. In acting as a champion of freedom of expression, while targeting critics of the Israeli government and its policies, Mr. Harper has attempted to redefine political speech as speech that would meet the definition of hate speech under the Criminal Code. These contradictory actions should raise serious doubts about whose expression the Harper government is actually committed to protecting.

Read more on rabble.ca

Supreme Court ruling stirs national debate on sex work

January 6th, 2014 by Priya Sarin

On 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.

Read more on rabble.ca

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

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

Report describes unequal access to justice in Canada

August 29th, 2013 by Shelina Ali

The Canadian Bar Association (CBA) released a summary report from the Access to Justice Committee this month called Equal Justice: Balancing the Scales. It addresses the challenges to accessing the civil justice system in Canada and sets out targets that should be achieved by 2030. The targets engage many different sectors of society, including provincial and federal government, the courts system, law schools, members of the legal profession and the public, to improve the accessibility of the civil justice system.

The CBA report comes on the heels of the recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision York University v. Markicevic et. al, where Justice Brown quite openly addressed the burdensome costs associated with civil litigation and the right to access the civil justice system (including accessing legal representation).

Read more on rabble.ca

Canadian mining company may be held liable for human rights abuses committed abroad by its foreign subsidiaries

August 13th, 2013 by Priya Sarin

On July 22, 2013, Justice Brown of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released her decision on whether or not related lawsuits against three mining companies, Hudbay Minerals Inc. (“Hudbay”), HMI Nickel Inc. (“HMI”) and Compañía Guatemalteca de Níquel S.A. (“CGN”), would be permitted to proceed (the “Hudbay Actions”). The defendants brought preliminary motions in March of this year to strike each of the claims on the basis that they disclosed no reasonable cause of action. As discussed below, Justice Brown quite rightly dismissed all three of the defendants’ motions. This is a groundbreaking decision because it will result in the first time that an action is litigated in Canada on the question of whether a Canadian parent company (i.e. Hudbay) can be held liable for the actions of its subsidiaries abroad (i.e. CGN and HMI) and, moreover, it recognizes that such a finding is in fact possible.

Read the rest of this post on rabble.ca