African asylum seekers in GTA faced racism, report shows
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
National Post
an hour ago
- National Post
U.S. court upholds order blocking indiscriminate targeting by immigration patrols
A U.S. appeals court has upheld an order blocking immigration agents from carrying out patrols in California that led to indiscriminate detentions without reasonable grounds to suspect people of being undocumented. Article content The ruling late Friday by a three-judge panel denies the federal government's appeal to overturn a temporary July order to halt the 'roving patrols' in Los Angeles that immigration rights groups have described as illegally using racial profiling. Article content Article content Article content District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong had ordered an end to the arrests, arguing such actions by agents violate a person's constitutional rights that safeguard against unreasonable seizures by the government. Article content Article content She said the detentions were being made 'based upon race alone,' on whether a person was speaking Spanish or English with an accent or because of their place of work, and ordered them stopped. Article content Friday's ruling by the US court of appeals for the Ninth Circuit described the case of plaintiff Jason Gavidia, a U.S. citizen born and raised in East Los Angeles who was arrested outside a tow yard in Montebello on June 12 by agents carrying military-style rifles. Article content 'The agents repeatedly asked Gavidia whether he is American — and they repeatedly ignored his answer: 'I am an American,'' the ruling said. Article content Agents asked what hospital he was born in, and Gavidia responded he did not know, but said he was born in 'East LA.' Article content It said Gavidia told the agents he could show them his government-issued ID. 'The agents took Gavidia's ID and his phone and kept his phone for 20 minutes. They never returned his ID.' Article content Article content California residents and advocacy groups sued the Department of Homeland Security over the detentions. Article content Los Angeles and surrounding suburbs have been ground zero for President Donald Trump's aggressive immigration crackdown. Article content He ordered the U.S. military deployed there for weeks, and agents have rounded up migrants at car washes, bus stops, stores and farms. Article content The ruling said the government's defense team argued that 'certain types of businesses, including car washes, were selected for encounters because… they are likely to employ persons without legal documentation.' Article content Rights groups hailed the order as a victory for those seeking to bar the Department of Homeland Security and agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement from conducting such raids. Article content 'This decision is further confirmation that the administration's paramilitary invasion of Los Angeles violated the Constitution and caused irreparable injury across the region,' said attorney Mohammad Tajsar of the ACLU Foundation of Southern California. Article content 'We look forward to holding the federal government accountable for these authoritarian horrors it unleashed in Southern California.' Article content
CTV News
9 hours ago
- CTV News
A judge struck down the Ford government's bike lane removals in Toronto. What comes next?
This week an Ontario court struck down a provincial law that required three bike lanes to be removed in Toronto and which also limited the installation of new bike lanes by municipalities. The decision handed a big win to advocacy group Cycle Toronto and two individual cyclists who challenged the law in court. Here's what you need to know about case and what might come next: What was the law meant to do Bill 212, titled the 'Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act' was introduced in the legislature in October and passed the following month. Among other things, it called for the removal of bike lanes along Bloor Street, Yonge Street and University Avenue in Toronto. Why did the judge strike it down? Ultimately, the judge agreed with the evidence that removal of the bike lanes would put people at increased risk of harm and death, violating the right to life and security of the person under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrined in the constitution. But perhaps more importantly, the judge found that the government had not presented any evidence to support its claims. 'It's a spectacular failure on the part of the Ontario government to defend its decision to remove bike lanes,' David Schneiderman told A professor of constitutional law at the University of Toronto, Schneiderman said the government's case had little chance of success, even if the judge had been sympathetic, because of the lack of evidence to back up the province's claims. 'It's hard to predict many of these kinds of charter claims. It depends on how deferential a judge wants to be,' Schneiderman said. 'But it wasn't available to judge Schabas to be deferential because there was no evidence, and the Ontario government's own experts failed to show that there was any correlation between removing bike lanes and improving congestion in the City of Toronto.' Ontario bike lanes A cyclist rides in a bike lane on University Avenue in Toronto on Friday, December 13, 2024. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Laura Proctor (Laura Proctor/The Canadian Press) What message does the ruling send? 'It should send a message to this province and others that when they're providing services of whatever sort, when they act in ways that endanger lives, physical security, or generally make the situation worse for the people who are receiving those services without some evidence to support that decision, then it might very well be that it'll give rise to a charter claim,' Schneiderman said. What happens next? The government has already said that it plans to appeal the ruling, however Schneiderman said it will likely face an uphill battle because there is so little evidence the government presented in the original case. 'When cases go on appeal, the facts that are on the record are not contested. They can't be,' Schneiderman said. 'The hearing established certain facts, and the fact is that there was no evidence offered by the government to support the decision to remove bike lanes. So without facts to support their decision, it's a real uphill climb.' Why is government bothering with case if it's weak? While the government may have lost in court, they scored a win in another way, one political observer pointed out. 'They believe that the public is on their side. They particularly believe that their voter coalition is heavily opposed to bike lanes,' CTV News Political Analyst Scott Reid pointed out. 'So they think that the visibility of this sue, the volume with which they pursued it, and the conflict that's produced by a court challenge and even a court loss helps amplify their championing of this issue and therefore cements their political position. 'Arguably, they believe they are bigger winners by being losers, because it catapults this issue back to the front of the news cycle and reignites coverage and conversation, and they are positive that they're the overwhelming beneficiaries of that.' Biking A cyclist rides in a bike lane on University Avenue in Toronto on Friday, December 13, 2024. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Laura Proctor But in addition to being seen as champions against gridlock, Reid said, the issue gives the government an enemy to fight against. 'This issue forces their preferred opponents to come out and vocally support bike lanes, which the Ford government believes not only puts those stakeholders at odds with the general public, but they think it even puts them at odds with traditional downtown voting coalitions,' Reid said. 'They think this is an orphan issue that has relatively few champions, but for hardcore urbanists and so they see this as pure political charm.' But while the cycling advocates win in court and the government scores a political win, it's the voters who are ultimately the losers, Reid said, if they end up paying for infrastructure to be built and then ripped up, as well as for a court battle to be fought over the issue. What about the notwithstanding clause? If the government were to appeal the case and lose, it could still use the notwithstanding clause to override the charter. But would it? The Ford government has shown a willingness to do so before. It used the notwithstanding clause to push through a law limiting third party election advertising in 2021. It also threatened to use the clause when it unilaterally shrunk the size of Toronto City Council just ahead of a municipal election in 2018, and moved to block a teacher's strike in 2022. Schneiderman agrees the government could decide to make use of the clause if it loses an appeal in court, but he added that whether it does so could come down to a matter of public opinion over the issue. 'In my view, the notwithstanding clause is there to protect the citizens from rogue courts that make decisions that are against the public interest,' Schneiderman said. 'It's not just for provinces or the federal government to use in the case of a popularity contest. It's not about that. It shouldn't be.' In this case the question could be 'how popular are cyclists' in Toronto, Schneiderman said. He explains that while the notwithstanding clause is available to the government to override charter rights, voters could punish governments that curtail them. 'It's not a really popular thing. People like their rights. People like the fact that they have rights, and they don't like governments to be seen to be trampling on them.' Reid said there's another reason the government might be hesitant to invoking the notwithstanding clause. 'I would be surprised if they reached for the notwithstanding clause, for no other reason than they might fear that it actually pollutes this issue, and instead of allowing them to repeat their arguments around bike lanes and enjoy the cut and thrust of the usual suspects who oppose the Ford government on bike lanes, that it might transform the issue, sort of alchemize it into something else that's got less public appeal and might cut more against their grain,' Reid said. He added that they've 'been burned' by using it in the past since its use itself becomes a polarizing issue that may invite questions about other rights being curbed.
CTV News
a day ago
- CTV News
Alcohol tax cuts in Ontario are in effect. Here's what you need to know
An LCBO employee moves products in an LCBO store at Union Station in Toronto on Tuesday, March 4, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Laura Proctor Ontario's largest alcohol tax cut in decades officially takes effect today, with the provincial government cutting levies and LCBO markups in an effort to shield local producers from global trade tensions. The changes, announced in the 2025 provincial budget include significant tax relief for spirits, cider, and ready-to-drink beverages (RTDs), along with new support for microbreweries. While the Ford government says the move is a response to U.S. trade policies, industry experts say some sectors will remain largely unaffected but others could see some new growth. What's changing and who benefits? In an email to CTV News Toronto, the Ministry of Finance says the cuts include a 50 per cent reduction in the spirits basic tax rate for distilleries with on-site retail sales, a nearly 50 per cent cut to LCBO markups on cider, and reduced markups for wine- and spirit-based ready-to-drink beverages with alcohol content under 7.1 per cent. Beer made by Ontario microbreweries will also benefit, with reductions to both LCBO markups and the beer basic tax, along with enhancements to the province's Small Beer Manufacturers' Tax Credit. 'In the face of President Trump's tariffs and tariff threats taking direct aim at our economy, we are protecting Ontario business with the largest tax cut to the alcohol industry in decades,' a spokesperson for Ontario's Ministry of Finance said. The province is also allocating $100 million in 2025–26 and $155 million in 2026–27 to support these changes. Scott Simmons, president of the industry trade association Ontario Craft Brewers, said the reforms mark a defining moment for the province's beer industry. 'The tax cut that takes effect today is a game changer for Ontario's craft beer sector, one of the biggest things to happen to the industry in a generation, and a great day for locally-owned craft breweries, craft beer lovers, and communities across Ontario,' Simmons said in a statement. 'We represent 80 per cent of all direct brewing jobs in Ontario, and today's tax changes have put it on a path that will see breweries grow, create even more jobs, invest in their communities, and get more local beer on store shelves — I think that's something we can all cheers!' The government also says this is part of a broader effort to modernize Ontario's alcohol marketplace. Not all sectors will see the same relief The Ontario Craft Wineries association says most of today's changes won't directly impact traditional wine producers, who saw earlier reforms of their own. 'With regards to taxation and other supports, OCW received some big wins recently including the elimination of the 6.1 per cent wine basic tax and an extension and uncapping of the VQA Support Program,' Michelle Wasylyshen, president and CEO of Ontario Craft Wineries, said in a statement. But Wasylyshen noted there's still more work to be done to level the playing field. One top priority, she said, is removing the LCBO administration fee charged to wineries for sales to restaurants — a fee that's applied even though 'the LCBO (is) not providing a service in this transaction.' She added that the recent shift toward Canadian-made products still presents a rare window of opportunity for domestic wine producers. 'The 'Buy-Canadian' movement has given us a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get our products into the hands of consumers, onto store shelves and into restaurants,' Wasylyshen said. 'Our biggest priority continues to be in sustaining (that) incredible boost in sales.' What comes next? While the results of the new framework remain to be seen, the province says they will continue to 'champion' domestic businesses. 'We will continue to champion Ontario and Canadian businesses as we work to build a more self-reliant and resilient economy.'
