Nova Scotia considers new rules for bar bouncers, justice minister says
The Nova Scotia government is considering new regulations for bouncers, according to Justice Minister Becky Druhan.
It comes after some family members of loved ones who died outside bars criticized the province over accountability.
Two of those family members called out the government at Province House last month for introducing a bill that would repeal legislation that hasn't been proclaimed within a decade, including the Security and Investigative Services Act that passed in 2010.
Since the act has never been proclaimed it never took effect. It would have required all security officials working at bars and lounges in the province to have criminal background checks, training and be licensed.
"The Department of Justice and Service Nova Scotia have been working together to consider what our next steps are," said Druhan. "We will be meeting with the families."
The province implemented changes for bouncers at late-night bars, which have cabaret licences, following the death of Ryan Sawyer outside the Halifax Alehouse in 2022. Druhan wouldn't say if the latest changes under consideration are similar to those conditions.
Family confirms meeting scheduled
Ryan Sawyer's mother, Lee, was one of the family members who spoke in front of MLAs in March.
She told MLAs at the time she can't understand why the government hasn't proclaimed the Security and Investigative Services Act or come up with a replacement.
The rules introduced after her son's death don't go far enough and only apply to a handful of bars, Sawyer said at the time.
She confirmed with CBC News she's meeting with government officials at the end of the month, but said via text message she hasn't been told what will be discussed.
Ryan Sawyer, far left, died after an altercation with a bouncer outside the Halifax Alehouse in 2022. His mother, Lee Sawyer is shown on the far right. She criticized the province last month for not proclaiming potential life-saving legislation. (Scott and Lee Sawyer)
B.C., Alberta, Quebec and Ontario have legislation regarding bouncers and security staff.
The family of Stephen Giffin lobbied successive governments after he died after being beaten by bouncers outside a downtown bar in 1999. That effort continued until the Security and Investigative Services Act passed 11 years later.
Giffin's family said it only learned the legislation had not been proclaimed after Ryan Sawyer died under similar circumstances.
MORE TOP STORIES
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
37 minutes ago
- CBS News
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, wrongly deported to El Salvador, brought back to U.S. to face human smuggling charges
Washington — Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant who the Trump administration admitted was mistakenly deported back to his home country, has been returned to the U.S. to face two federal criminal counts that were detailed in an indictment unsealed on Friday. Filed in the federal district court in Nashville, the indictment charges Abrego Garcia with one count of conspiracy to transport aliens and one count of unlawful transportation of undocumented aliens. Abrego Garcia was removed from the U.S. to El Salvador in March, where he was being held at a notorious supermax prison. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in remarks that the Salvadoran government agreed to return Abrego Garcia to face the criminal charges after it was presented with an arrest warrant. "Abrego Garcia has landed in the United States to face justice," Bondi said, adding "this is what American justice looks like." ABC News first reported Friday that he was being brought back to the U.S. to face the charges. The indictment The filing alleges that between 2016 and 2025, Abrego Garcia and others conspired to bring migrants from Latin American countries to the U.S., passing through Mexico before crossing the southern border into Texas. Prosecutors allege that Abrego Garcia and an unidentified co-conspirator picked up the migrants in Houston and transported them to other parts of the U.S. The Justice Department said that Abrego Garcia and six co-conspirators used cellphones and social media platforms to move migrants into and throughout the U.S. He allegedly worked with two of the co-conspirators to transport firearms that were purchased illegally in Texas for distribution and resale in Maryland, where Abrego Garcia lived. Abrego Garcia and the six others also allegedly collected financial payments from migrants for their movements, according to the indictment. That money was then transferred between one another, the Justice Department said, claiming it was an effort to hide their origins. The indictment claims that Abrego Garcia and his co-conspirators "knowingly and unlawfully transported thousands" of migrants who were not legally authorized to live or work in the U.S., and alleges that many of those people were members of the gang MS-13 and associates. The filing includes information about a November 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee, when Abrego Garcia was pulled over by the state Highway Patrol for speeding. The agency released body camera footage from the incident. Abrego Garcia had at least eight people in the car with him when he was stopped. He said that they had been performing construction work at a site in St. Louis, Missouri. An April report from the Department of Homeland Security about the incident said Aberego Garcia was suspected of human trafficking, though he was not arrested or charged with any crime. Abrego Garcia's deportation Abrego Garcia's case sparked nationwide backlash after an immigration official in the Trump administration acknowledged that his deportation to El Salvador was an "administrative error." The 29-year-old had been granted a legal status in 2019, known as withholding of removal, that forbade the Department of Homeland Security from removing him to his home country of El Salvador because he was likely to face persecution by local gangs. Abrego Garcia was among the more than 200 people who were boarded onto planes bound for El Salvador in mid-March for confinement in the country's notorious maximum-security Terrorism Confinement Center, known as CECOT. The removals were part of the Trump administration's efforts to crack down on illegal immigration, which have prompted numerous legal battles across the country. Abrego Garcia, who had lived in Maryland since he came to the U.S. unlawfully in 2011, was initially held at CECOT but eventually moved to a lower-security facility, according to Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen, who met with Abrego Garcia in El Salvador in April. The State Department later confirmed he had been transferred. The man's case, and U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis' orders for the government to take steps to bring him back to the U.S. was the catalyst for an escalating clash between the Trump administration and the courts that has played out over the past few weeks. The government was accused of defying Xinis' demand that it facilitate his release from Salvadoran custody — which was affirmed by the Supreme Court — and refusing to provide any details about what efforts it had taken to do so. The Trump administration has claimed Abrego Garcia is a member of the gang MS-13, citing an allegation from a confidential informant and the clothes he was wearing when he was arrested in 2019, after which he was released from custody. His lawyers have denied Abrego Garcia has any ties to MS-13, and said he has never been charged or convicted of a crime in the U.S. or El Salvador. Legal battle goes to Supreme Court Three courts — the district court on which Xinis sits, a federal appeals court and the Supreme Court — all said the Trump administration had to facilitate Abrego Garcia's release from Salvadoran custody. The Supreme Court also directed the government to ensure that his case "is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador." But lawyers for Abrego Garcia said the administration has defied those decisions by repeatedly refusing to take steps to bring him back to the U.S. or provide any information about whether it has even made attempts to do so. In response, Xinis ordered an expedited examination into the Trump administration's refusal to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S. and allowed his lawyers to pose 15 questions to government officials and make 15 requests for documents. Abrego Garcia's lawyers told Xinis that the Trump administration turned over "nothing of substance" and provided "non-responsive" answers to their questions. The judge then blasted the administration for its responses and blamed it for "continued mischaracterization" of the Supreme Court's order. She said their objection to certain requests for information "reflects a willful and bad faith refusal to comply with discovery obligations." Regarding the administration's attempts to invoke certain privileges to shield certain details from Abrego Garcia's lawyers, the judge said they rely on "boilerplate assertions." "That ends now," Xinis wrote.
CBS News
37 minutes ago
- CBS News
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, wrongly deported to El Salvador, brought back to U.S. to face charges
Washington — Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant who the Trump administration admitted was mistakenly deported back to his home country, has been returned to the U.S. to face two federal criminal counts that were detailed in an indictment unsealed on Friday. Filed in the federal district court in Nashville, the indictment charges Abrego Garcia with one count of conspiracy to transport aliens and one count of unlawful transportation of undocumented aliens. Abrego Garcia was removed from the U.S. to El Salvador in March, where he was being held at a notorious supermax prison. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in remarks that the Salvadoran government agreed to return Abrego Garcia to face the criminal charges after it was presented with an arrest warrant. "Abrego Garcia has landed in the United States to face justice," Bondi said, adding "this is what American justice looks like." ABC News first reported Friday that he was being brought back to the U.S. to face the charges. The indictment The filing alleges that between 2016 and 2025, Abrego Garcia and others conspired to bring migrants from Latin American countries to the U.S., passing through Mexico before crossing the southern border into Texas. Prosecutors allege that Abrego Garcia and an unidentified co-conspirator picked up the migrants in Houston and transported them to other parts of the U.S. The Justice Department said that Abrego Garcia and six co-conspirators used cellphones and social media platforms to move migrants into and throughout the U.S. He allegedly worked with two of the co-conspirators to transport firearms that were purchased illegally in Texas for distribution and resale in Maryland, where Abrego Garcia lived. Abrego Garcia and the six others also allegedly collected financial payments from migrants for their movements, according to the indictment. That money was then transferred between one another, the Justice Department said, claiming it was an effort to hide their origins. The indictment claims that Abrego Garcia and his co-conspirators "knowingly and unlawfully transported thousands" of migrants who were not legally authorized to live or work in the U.S., and alleges that many of those people were members of the gang MS-13 and associates. The filing includes information about a November 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee, when Abrego Garcia was pulled over by the state Highway Patrol for speeding. The agency released body camera footage from the incident. Abrego Garcia had at least eight people in the car with him when he was stopped. He said that they had been performing construction work at a site in St. Louis, Missouri. An April report from the Department of Homeland Security about the incident said Aberego Garcia was suspected of human trafficking, though he was not arrested or charged with any crime. Abrego Garcia's deportation Abrego Garcia's case sparked nationwide backlash after an immigration official in the Trump administration acknowledged that his deportation to El Salvador was an "administrative error." The 29-year-old had been granted a legal status in 2019, known as withholding of removal, that forbade the Department of Homeland Security from removing him to his home country of El Salvador because he was likely to face persecution by local gangs. Abrego Garcia was among the more than 200 people who were boarded onto planes bound for El Salvador in mid-March for confinement in the country's notorious maximum-security Terrorism Confinement Center, known as CECOT. The removals were part of the Trump administration's efforts to crack down on illegal immigration, which have prompted numerous legal battles across the country. Abrego Garcia, who had lived in Maryland since he came to the U.S. unlawfully in 2011, was initially held at CECOT but eventually moved to a lower-security facility, according to Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen, who met with Abrego Garcia in El Salvador in April. The State Department later confirmed he had been transferred. The man's case, and U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis' orders for the government to take steps to bring him back to the U.S. was the catalyst for an escalating clash between the Trump administration and the courts that has played out over the past few weeks. The government was accused of defying Xinis' demand that it facilitate his release from Salvadoran custody — which was affirmed by the Supreme Court — and refusing to provide any details about what efforts it had taken to do so. The Trump administration has claimed Abrego Garcia is a member of the gang MS-13, citing an allegation from a confidential informant and the clothes he was wearing when he was arrested in 2019, after which he was released from custody. His lawyers have denied Abrego Garcia has any ties to MS-13, and said he has never been charged or convicted of a crime in the U.S. or El Salvador. Legal battle goes to Supreme Court Three courts — the district court on which Xinis sits, a federal appeals court and the Supreme Court — all said the Trump administration had to facilitate Abrego Garcia's release from Salvadoran custody. The Supreme Court also directed the government to ensure that his case "is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador." But lawyers for Abrego Garcia said the administration has defied those decisions by repeatedly refusing to take steps to bring him back to the U.S. or provide any information about whether it has even made attempts to do so. In response, Xinis ordered an expedited examination into the Trump administration's refusal to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S. and allowed his lawyers to pose 15 questions to government officials and make 15 requests for documents. Abrego Garcia's lawyers told Xinis that the Trump administration turned over "nothing of substance" and provided "non-responsive" answers to their questions. The judge then blasted the administration for its responses and blamed it for "continued mischaracterization" of the Supreme Court's order. She said their objection to certain requests for information "reflects a willful and bad faith refusal to comply with discovery obligations." Regarding the administration's attempts to invoke certain privileges to shield certain details from Abrego Garcia's lawyers, the judge said they rely on "boilerplate assertions." "That ends now," Xinis wrote.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Unanimous Supreme Court Affirms That There Is No 'Good' Discrimination
On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that plaintiffs in "majority" groups cannot be forced to clear a higher bar to prove they were discriminated against than minority plaintiffs. The case originated from a heterosexual woman, Marlean Ames, who sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services, which runs the state's juvenile correctional system, after she was passed over for a promotion and subsequently significantly demoted in favor of two gay candidates with less education and experience than herself. Two lower courts ruled against her, arguing that she had failed to clear a higher bar to prove discrimination set for plaintiffs from majority groups. Both courts found that she had not provided "background circumstances" showing that "the agency was the rare employer who discriminates against members of a majority group," according to the Supreme Court Opinion. While the Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of Ames' discrimination claim, they did rule that the lower courts' "background circumstances" standard was unconstitutional and inconsistent with federal civil rights law, which protects all individuals equally, regardless of whether they belong to majority or minority groups. "As a textual matter, Title VII's disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs," Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in the Court's opinion. "By establishing the same protections for every 'individual'—without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone." In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas noted that he joined Jackson's opinion "in full," adding that he also wanted to "highlight the problems that arise when judges create atextual legal rules and frameworks." Thomas argued that, when courts come up with "atextual requirements," it creates confusion and difficulty enforcing those rules. After a series of high-profile split decisions on key culture war issues, this unanimous decision is a strident affirmation that—regardless of the justices' differences on what constitutes racial discrimination—civil rights laws protect all people equally from discrimination, regardless of what demographic traits they have. The post Unanimous Supreme Court Affirms That There Is No 'Good' Discrimination appeared first on
