Anglican Diocese of N.S. and P.E.I. adopts pledge banning inappropriate use of NDAs
Julie Macfarlane of Can't Buy My Silence Canada says a member of the diocese told her the membership unanimously passed a resolution to not use NDAs unless requested by a complainant in cases involving sexual harassment, misconduct or abuse, discrimination, retaliation or bullying.
She says the resolution was passed Saturday during the diocese's weekend of meetings, which is called a synod.
Macfarlane says the movement among Christian organizations to ban the inappropriate use of NDAs is particularly impactful given that non-disclosure agreements have been used to silence victims of abuse in the church.
Macfarlane, who is a survivor of sexual abuse by an Anglican minister, says she hopes the regional Anglican diocese is the first of many religious organizations in Canada to commit to the non-disclosure agreement pledge.
The diocese did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In a statement issued by Can't Buy My Silence on Friday, diocese member Cynthia Pilichos said she would be speaking in favour of adopting the ban on inappropriate NDA use at the synod because the pledge is in line with the organization's commitments to ensure justice, respect and dignity for all.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 25, 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Epoch Times
an hour ago
- Epoch Times
With Beijing's Latest Tariffs, Poilievre Renews Call to Cancel Federal Loan for Chinese-Built Ships
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is once again urging the federal government to cancel the $1 billion loan it is providing to BC Ferries for its deal with a Chinese state-owned shipyard, citing the harm the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) latest tariffs are causing to Canadian farmers. Poilievre made the comments in an Aug. 13 social media post, saying that while Beijing recently imposed 'unfair and unjustified' tariffs on Canada on top of existing levies, Ottawa continues to back a loan from the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB) to purchase ships from a Chinese state-owned company 'that undercuts Canadian companies on environmental standards, worker safety and wages.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
GOLDSTEIN: Carney's energy minister makes business case for natural gas
Federal Energy and Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson says he 'knows there are buyers' for Canada's liquified natural gas (LNG) globally, quite the change in emphasis from former prime minister Justin Trudeau's argument there was no business case for such projects. 'What I can tell you from the conversations that the prime minister has been having, the minister of foreign affairs has been having, the minister of international trade has been having, the conversations I've been having, our allies are very interest in Canadian LNG,' Hodgson said on Tuesday in an interview on The Vassy Kapelos Show. When asked about competition from the U.S, which is ramping up its LNG export capacity, Hodgson responded: 'Our production is much closer to Asian markets. Our production is much cleaner than the Americans in terms of carbon footprint.' That's a turnaround from previous arguments by Trudeau, as a parade of foreign leaders came to Canada seeking Canadian LNG as an alternative to importing LNG from Russia, in the wake of Russian President Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Trudeaus said at the time there was no business case for LNG projects — meaning Canada was (and still is) shipping almost all of its natural gas to the U.S. by pipeline at discount prices — although he was talking about Canada's potential capacity to ship LNG to European markets by tanker from Canada's East Coast. That said, Trudeau was generally unenthusiastic about exporting Canada's natural gas abroad, advocating instead for developing alternative energy sources such as green hydrogen. GUNTER: Trudeau cost Canada a chance to get into global LNG game — Trump and U.S. are reaping the benefit LILLEY: Carney promises new trading relationships, can't handle U.S. Since then, one large-scale export facility — LNG Canada — has been completed in Kitimat, B.C. To be fair, this was approved under the Trudeau government. It contributed $275 million to its completion in 2019, describing the $40-billion project as 'the largest single private sector investment in the history of the country … which will ultimately create over 10,000 jobs, as well as lead to billions of dollars in direct government revenues and hundreds of millions of dollars in construction contracts for Indigenous businesses.' It began shipping LNG by tanker to Asian markets in June, the first project of its kind in North America with direct access to the Pacific Coast. There are six other LNG projects currently in the works — all based in B.C. — and if all of them are completed, Canada could have the capacity to ship 50 million tonnes of LNG abroad eventually. However, for that to happen, Prime Minister Mark Carney's government will have to modify or reverse a number of regulations and laws passed by the Trudeau government. This includes a cap on Canada's annual oil and gas emissions; the Impact Assessment Act, dubbed the 'no pipelines bill' by critics; and Canada's current target of lowering our greenhouse gas emissions to at least 40% below 2005 levels by 2030. (According to the latest government data, Canada's emissions as of 2023 were just 8.5% below 2005 levels and on track to miss the 2030 target.) Before Parliament adjourned in June, the Carney government passed the Building Canada Act to speed up the construction of so-called nation-building projects, but the details of what projects it is considering haven't yet been revealed. Finally, despite Trudeau's lack of enthusiasm for natural gas in favour of greener energy sources, replacing coal-fired electricity with natural gas globally would be one of the world's most effective ways of reducing global emissions, since natural gas burns at half the carbon intensity of coal. RECOMMENDED VIDEO
Newsweek
3 hours ago
- Newsweek
Full List of Supreme Court Cases to Be Heard This Coming Fall Term
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Supreme Court has released its October and November oral argument calendars for the 2025 term. Why It Matters The Supreme Court will begin its 2025 term on October 6. The justices are expected to hear several cases about issues that have drawn public interest, including redistricting and conversion therapy bans. A general overall exterior view of the Supreme Court, Sunday, Jan. 1, 2023, in Washington. A general overall exterior view of the Supreme Court, Sunday, Jan. 1, 2023, in Washington. Aaron M. Sprecher via AP Villareal v. Texas Oral arguments in Villareal v. Texas are scheduled for October 6. The case presents the question of whether a court violates a defendant's right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and counsel from discussing the defendant's testimony during an overnight recess. The petitioner, David Asa Villareal, was convicted of murder and sentenced to 60 years in prison. Villareal testified during the trial. On the first day of his testimony, the court declared a recess and dismissed the jury due to a previously scheduled administrative commitment. The court instructed Villarreal and his attorneys not to discuss his testimony during the 24-hour recess. "When a defendant confers with his attorney, the defendant's testimony permeates every aspect of counsel's advice," attorneys for Villareal wrote in a petition for a writ of certiorari. "There is no way to separate discussions of testimony from discussions of trial strategy. Prohibiting counsel from discussing the defendant's testimony during an overnight recess is tantamount to preventing counsel from doing his or her job." Berk v. Choy The justices will also hear oral arguments in Berk v. Choy on October 6. The question presented in this case is whether a state law requiring the dismissal of a complaint if it is not accompanied by an expert affidavit may apply in federal court. Chiles v. Salazar The Court will hear arguments in Chiles v. Salazar on October 7. The justices will consider whether a Colorado state law banning conversion therapy for minors by mental health counselors violates free speech rights. The petitioner, Kaley Chiles, is a licensed counselor. "A practicing Christian, Chiles believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God's design, including their biological sex," attorneys for Chiles wrote in a petition for a writ of certiorari. "Many of her clients seek her counsel precisely because they believe that their faith and their relationship with God establishes the foundation upon which to understand their identity and desires. But Colorado bans these consensual conversations based on the viewpoints they express." Attorneys for the respondents said legal precedent holds that the First Amendment permits states to regulate the practice of conversion therapy, "like other unsafe and ineffective health care treatments, even when those treatments involve speech." Barrett v. United States Oral arguments in Barrett v. United States are scheduled for October 7. The petitioner, Dwayne Barrett, was convicted of aiding a robbery by driving the codefendant to the scene, aiding the use of a gun during that robbery, a "crime of violence," and aiding the use of a gun used to kill during a "crime of violence." The justices will consider whether Barrett's sentencing on two charges violated the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. Bost v. Illinois Board of Elections The justices are scheduled to hear oral arguments in Bost v. Illinois Board of Elections on October 8. One petitioner in this case is Representative Mike Bost, a Republican from Illinois. The Court will consider whether the petitioners have presented sufficient factual allegations to challenge state time, place and manner regulations concerning federal elections. Postal Service v. Konan Oral arguments in Postal Service v. Konan are scheduled for October 8. The case centers around an exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act barring lawsuits for claims arising out of the "loss" or "miscarriage" of "letters or postal matter." The justices will consider whether the exception applies to claims that arise from a USPS employee's intentional failure to deliver mail to a designated address. Bowe v. United States The Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Bowe v. United States on October 14. The case centers around procedural questions related to the application of the federal laws governing post-conviction relief for federal prisoners. Ellingburg v. United States Oral arguments in Ellingburg v. United States are scheduled for October 14. The Court will consider whether a restitution order, imposed as part of a criminal sentence, violates a clause of the Constitution barring laws that retroactively increase the punishment for a crime or criminalize conduct that was legal when it occurred. Louisiana v. Callais Louisiana v. Callais, a case challenging Louisiana's congressional map, is set for reargument on October 15. The justices first heard arguments in the redistricting case earlier this year. The Court will consider whether the map is racially gerrymandered to create majority-minority districts and whether the new districts violate the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The case was consolidated with Robinson v. Callais. Case v. Montana The Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Case v. Montana on October 15. The justices will consider whether law enforcement can enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring. Petitioner William Trevor Case alleges that law enforcement entered his home without a warrant and seized evidence used to prosecute Case for a felony. Case's ex-girlfriend had previously called law enforcement and said Case had threatened suicide during an argument over the phone. Rico v. United States Oral arguments in Rico v. United States are scheduled for November 3. The Court will consider whether the fugitive-tolling doctrine applies in the context of supervised release. Petitioner Isabel Rico had her supervised release revoked by a court because she had been deemed a fugitive by a probation office in 2018. Hencely v. Fluor Corporation The Court is scheduled to hear arguments in Hencely v. Fluor Corporation on November 3. The justices will consider whether a member of the U.S. armed forces who was injured in a military base bombing can sue the government contractor who employed the bomber. Hamm v. Smith The Court will hear arguments in Hamm v. Smith on November 4. The question presented is whether and how courts should assess a claim by a defendant that he cannot be executed because he is intellectually disabled. The Alabama Department of Corrections argues that Joseph Smith is not intellectually disabled, citing multiple IQ tests where he scored higher than the level required to prove intellectual disability under the law. The Department of Corrections is asking the Court to reverse a lower court's decision overturning Smith's sentence. Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist Oral arguments in Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist are scheduled for November 4. The case asks whether a district court's final judgment must be vacated when an appeals court later determines that it erroneously dismissed a party from the case when it was transferred to federal court. Coney Island Auto Parts, Inc. v. Burton The justices will hear oral arguments in Coney Island Auto Parts, Inc. v. Burton on November 5. Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety Oral arguments in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety are set for November 10. The Court will consider whether an inmate can file a lawsuit against a government official for violations of a federal law that protects the religious rights of prisoners, rather than the government entity that employs the official. Damon Landor, the petitioner, is a practicing Rastafarian. He alleges that he was held down by two prison guards while his head was shaved. Landor sued several officials and the Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety. A district court found that the law does not allow for damages against individual state officials. The GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal The Court is expected to hear arguments in The GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal on November 10. Fernandez v. United States The justices will hear arguments in Fernandez v. United States on November 12. The Court will consider whether "extraordinary and compelling reasons" that may justify a lower sentence can also be cited as reasons to vacate a sentence in a motion for post-conviction relief. Rutherford v. United States Oral arguments in Rutherford v. United States are scheduled for November 12. The case has been consolidated with Carter v. United States. The case also relates to "extraordinary and compelling reasons" allowing for a reduced sentence. The justices will consider whether a district court can address disparities created by the First Step Act's prospective changes in sentencing law when deciding if "extraordinary and compelling reasons" warrant a sentencing reduction. Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@
