Riverview

It’s called a “confidence vote”. It’s not every bill, and I forget what makes it confidential, b

Generally, budgets and throne speeches are considered automatic confidence votes. Other than that, the House can either propose a non-confidence vote or the Government can designate a vote to be a confidence vote. Generally, the games of chicken over confidence votes happen a lot in minority governments.

https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/procedure-and-practice-4/ch02-4-e.html

The Constitution Act, 1982 doesn't lay out how elections or electoral finances or voting or campaigns, etc are to be handled. The Constitution only says that elections have to happen every 5 years (s.4 of the Charter and s. 50) and anyone who can vote can be a MP/MPP/MLA (s.3 of the Charter), the conditions to suspend elections (s.4(2) of the Charter), and how many and how ridings are created for Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia(s. 40), and electoral officers (s.83) for Ontario and Quebec. The ridings and the electoral officers are subject to federal or provincial law.

Section 51(1) does lay how to readjust the ridings.

On a fun fact about the Constitution. Many people think it takes 7 provinces with 50 percent of the population to change the Constitution. Certain sections can be changed with a simple vote in the House and/or Provincial Legislature to change.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/FullText.html

How elections are run is decided by either the Elections Act at the Federal level or a Province's version of the Elections Act.

Don't sign up for a class action law suit. File your own claim in a small claims court. You'll get more money out of the law suit. Also, if everyone filed a small claims law suit, the companies would have to pay out more.

If a 100 people each sued for $20,000. That would be $200,000. Each of those 100 claims costs the company about 10 hours in billable hours and the lawyers are charing $500 per hour. That's about $50,000 gone.

Now, let's say 100,000 people sue for $20,000, that's $2,000,000,000 being paid out with $500,000,000 in legal fees.

1,000,000 people at $20,000 is $20,000,000,000 to be paid out with $5,000,000,000 in legal fees.

I remember reading years ago (2010?) from a lawyer who declined to get involved in a class action law suit against a car manufacture (Honda or Toyota?). The lawyer wanted to file in Small Claims and wanted other people to do it as they would get bigger pay outs and it would cost the car manufacture more money through litigating numerous law suits.

Thanks. I deleted the second post.

Most likely, everyone was waiting to see what the Court would say about the issue. Now, that the Court had made a ruling about the Prosecutor's conduct. I imagine now is when the disciplinary actions can start to move forward.

It would be a boon for transparency if the government had to state why organizations are being listed. I'm not expecting list of evidence however an explanation would be good.

Section 11(c) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms confirms that defendants cannot be compelled to testify in their own matter. It's Canada's verision of the right to remain silent.

A witness can be compelled to testify however their testimony can't be used against them in other proceeding except for prejury charges. This is found in section 13 of the Charter.

Ultimately, it's up to the Crown to prove their case. It all comes back to being innocent before proven guilty. Section 11(d) of the Charter.

If you were to flip it all around, you would be considered guilty until proven innocent, you would always have to testify, and any witnesses that could help you would be open to being charged. In that scenario, good luck at not ending up in jail. The vast majority of defendants don't have the resources to take on the State in a criminal matter.

The defence had video recordings of the women verbally consenting

I haven't followed this casenor seen the evidence that was provided by either the Crown or the Defence. However, the Supreme Court confirmed in R. v. J.A., 2011 SCC 28 (CanLII), [2011] 2 SCR 440 that consent for sexual activity requires ongoing consent.

[65] In the end, we are left with this. Parliament has defined sexual assault as sexual touching without consent. It has dealt with consent in a way that makes it clear that ongoing, conscious and present consent to “the sexual activity in question” is required. This concept of consent produces just results in the vast majority of cases. It has proved of great value in combating the stereotypes that historically have surrounded consent to sexual relations and undermined the law’s ability to address the crime of sexual assault. In some situations, the concept of consent Parliament has adopted may seem unrealistic. However, it is inappropriate for this Court to carve out exceptions when they undermine Parliament’s choice. In the absence of a constitutional challenge, the appropriate body to alter the law on consent in relation to sexual assault is Parliament, should it deem this necessary.

The victim may have consented at first however if consent was revoked during sexual activity then it becomes sexual assault.

For thos who want to learn a new fact, it's illegal in Ontario to discriminate against people because of their family status.

TLDR: The trucker protest was really just an anti-Trudeau protest and not about COVID restrictions

Time for a brief history of trucker protest, federal/provincial jurisdictions, and international borders.

Both Canada and the US exempted unvaccinated truckers when it came to crossing borders to help mitigate supply chain issues. Eventually, both Canada and the US decided that you need to be vaccinated to enter Canada or the US. The idea of a host country gets to control who enters their country is fundamental concept of international borders.

What this meant is that US truckers would need to be vaccinated to enter Canada and vice versa. As much as people think Trudeau is all powerful dictator, he doesn't have the power to dictate to the US about their COVID restrictions.

The truckers should have protested at the US embassy or at the border to pressure the US to allow unvaccinated Canadian truckers in.

The protest morphed into general COVID restrictions. Cool, this is something that Canadian protesters can try affect change. The Constitution Act, doesn't just lay out rights and freedoms. It lays out how governments are to operate (the legislative, executive, judicial), judges, the Courts, taxation, etc.

Section 92 lays out what is under Provincial jurisdiction.

The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Hospitals, Asylums, Charities, and Eleemosynary Institutions in and for the Province, other than Marine Hospitals.
Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province.

The Supreme Court in Schneider v. The Queen, 1982 CanLII 26 (SCC), [1982] 2 SCR 112 dealt with the issue of public health and Provincial jurisdiction.

The Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations (the Rowell-Sirois Commission) in 1938 commented on this absence of a specific head of power dealing with the administration of public health at pp. 32-33: In 1867 the administration of public health was still in a very primitive stage, the assumption being that health was a private matter and state assistance to protect or improve the health of the citizen was highly exceptional and tolerable only in emergencies such as epidemics, or for purposes of ensuring elementary sanitation in urban communities. Such public health activities as the state did undertake were almost wholly a function of local and municipal governments. It is not strange, therefore, that the British North America Act does not expressly allocate jurisdiction in public health, except that marine hospitals and quarantine (presumably ship quarantine) were assigned to the Dominion, while the province was given jurisdiction over other hospitals, asylums, charities and eleemosynary institutions. But the province was assigned jurisdiction over "generally all matters of a merely local or private nature in the Province", and it is probable that this power was deemed to cover health matters, while the power over "municipal institutions" provided a convenient means for dealing with such matters.

Dominion rather than by the province". "Dominion jurisdiction over health matters is largely, if not wholly, ancillary to express jurisdiction over other subjects ... " Thus historically, at least, the general jurisdiction over public health was seen to lie with the provinces under s. 92(16) "Generally all matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province" although the considerable dimensions of this jurisdiction were unlikely foreseen in 1867.

This view that the general jurisdiction over health matters is provincial (allowing for a limited federal jurisdiction either ancillary to the express heads of power in s. 91 or the emergency power under peace, order and good government) has prevailed and is now not seriously questioned (see Rinfret v. Pope (1886), 12 Q.L.R. 303 (Que. C.A.), Re Bowack, supra, Labatt Breweries of Canada Ltd. v. Attorney General of Canada, 1979 CanLII 190 (SCC), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 914, per Estey J.).

The medical treatment of drug addiction is a bona fide concern of the provincial legislature under its general jurisdiction with respect to public health. The constitutional question to be answered is whether the "dominant or most important characteristic" of the Heroin Treatment Act is the medical treatment of drug addiction.

Public health squarely falls into the jurisdiction of the Provinces. Great, we know who have to protest. That would be the Premiers, so let's all head down to the......Canada's capital to protest the Federal Government who doesn't have jurisdiction over public health matters outside very specific situations such as border controls and prisons.

Let's all be clear that the trucker protest really was just an anti-Trudeau protest.

Riverview_Legal

@ Riverview_Legal @lemmy.ca

Posts

12
Comments

11
Joined

2 yr. ago

Riverview_Legal

Speaker Johnson abandons floor agenda, sends members home early amid GOP rebellion

Speaker Johnson abandons floor agenda, sends members home early amid GOP rebellion

I wonder where that money went

Canadian town officially recognizes trees as living beings with rights: ‘Our biggest ally’

Huge win!

TIL: That in 2021 almost 50% of adult Canadians struggle with literacy

TIL: That in 2021 almost 50% of adult Canadians struggle with literacy

Region of Waterloo loses legal bid to clear Kitchener encampment

Region of Waterloo loses legal bid to clear Kitchener encampment

Region of Waterloo loses legal bid to clear Kitchener encampment

Region of Waterloo loses legal bid to clear Kitchener encampment

Region of Waterloo loses legal bid to clear Kitchener encampment

Judge slams veteran prosecutor for angrily telling Toronto cop ‘we protect our own.’ Dangerous driving case tossed

Suggestions for Linux PDF Editor and E-sign

Suggestions for Linux PDF Editor and E-sign

Suggestions for Linux PDF Editor and E-sign

Suggestions for Linux PDF Editor and E-sign

Minister of Justice, Sean Fraser, introduced Bill C-9, which, among other things, aims to criminalize the public display of certain "hate symbols"

Court worked as it's designed to in the Hockey Canada case. That's the problem, survivors and lawyers say

Court worked as it's designed to in the Hockey Canada case. That's the problem, survivors and lawyers say

TIL companies can still discriminate against people born out of wedlock or if their parents divorce

Canadian 'Freedom Convoy' protest leader found guilty

(Ontario) Piercing the Corporate Veil (LTB)