Latest news with #CanadianCharterofRightsandFreedoms
CBC
a day ago
- Politics
- CBC
Regina court set to deliver decision on pronoun policy legal challenge
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal is set to release its decision in the Saskatchewan Minister of Education v. UR Pride Centre for Sexuality and Gender Diversity on Monday, settling a years-long dispute over the Saskatchewan government's pronoun policy. In August 2023 the Saskatchewan government announced that it was requiring parental consent for children under the age of 16 who want to use a different name or pronoun at school. Later that month the UR Pride Centre for Sexuality and Gender Diversity filed an originating application against the new policy, requesting a judge strike down the changes. It said the policy was not justifiable under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and denied gay and gender-diverse students "a safe and welcoming educational environment in which to be themselves." UR Pride also argued that the policy outed children who weren't ready to express their new identity to their parents, and that that would potentially put them at risk of harm.
Vancouver Sun
a day ago
- Health
- Vancouver Sun
B.C. doctor loses challenge of dismissal for COVID vaccine refusal
A B.C. judge has rejected a Charter challenge brought by a Kamloops doctor who said her rights were violated when her hospital privileges were revoked for refusing to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Dr. Theresa Szezepaniak brought the action in B.C. Supreme Court in Kelowna against the Interior Health Authority and the Hospital Appeal Board, which upheld the health agency's decision. Judge Steven Wilson said the revocation was an administrative decision, not a matter of Charter rights, and ruled in favour of health officials. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. Szezepaniak worked as a hospitalist at Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops during the pandemic. On Oct. 14, 2021, provincial health officer Dr. Bonnie Henry issued an order that all doctors and nurses must be vaccinated. Those who refused were told they must resign their privileges or run the risk of being disciplined. The doctor refused either to get the vaccine or resign, instead launching an appeal with the Hospital Appeal Board, which largely upheld the decision of Interior Health, although it ' concluded that the sanction of termination was too harsh.' The appeal board said Szezepaniak should be suspended instead, effectively ending her contract while the health order was in place. Szezepaniak 'argues that her decision not to be vaccinated was one she was entitled to make, and because the provincial health order precluded her from working at the hospital, she ought not to have been disciplined at all.' The doctor argued the discipline meant she has a 'black mark' on her record that will have to be disclosed whenever she applies for new positions. She argued that violates Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it 'includes the right to earn an income to support oneself and family.' The judge noted neither the validity of the health order nor the question of the efficacy of the COVID vaccine were at issue in the case. The judge also said it was not a test of the 'procedural fairness' of the appeal board hearing or of Interior Health's procedures and rules for employees. Szezepaniak has been practising medicine for 23 years and was a clinical instructor at UBC for 15 years. The primary earner in her family, she moved to 100 Mile House and took a position there after the Royal Inland dismissal. Hospital privileges in all B.C. health authorities are reviewed annually by the regional board of directors, and when a medical worker fails to abide by the Hospital Act or any of its bylaws, a disciplinary process is started. Interior Health's board cancelled Szezepaniak's hospital privileges in a resolution dated Aug. 18, 2022. She appealed to the Hospital Appeal Board, which upheld the dismissal and rejected the Charter argument. The appeal board 'acknowledged that the petitioner was free to make the decision to remain unvaccinated, but concluded that discipline was nonetheless the consequence of that decision.' As for the Charter argument, the appeal board said the health authority was only making a 'routine or regular' application of existing government policy. 'While made in response to the effects of the (provincial health) order, it did not constitute application or implementation of government policy.' The judge also agreed the operational decision to suspend Szezepaniak's hospital privileges was not 'patently unreasonable' in the circumstances, a condition that could trigger a Charter challenge. 'I do not accept that a hospital board's ability to exclude a practitioner from the hospital for failing to comply with the bylaws is a decision that is governmental in nature,' said the judge in the ruling posted online late last week. While the vaccination mandate was a provincial health order, 'the decision regarding how to discipline the hospital medical staff for their breach of the PHO (order) was not subject to governmental control under the Hospital Act, as the responsibility for adopting disciplinary measures for governmental policies rests with the Interior Health Authority board. 'It follows that I conclude that the Charter does not apply to the circumstances in this case.' Though acknowledging that Szezepaniak encountered 'stress and hardship' in making her decision to reject the vaccine, the judge said that 'does not make the orders a state interference with their physical or psychological integrity.' The judge referred to an earlier ruling that said 'the right to security of the person does not protect the individual from the ordinary stresses and anxieties that a person of reasonable sensibility would suffer as a result of government action. 'If the right were interpreted with such broad sweep, countless government initiatives could be challenged on the ground that they infringe the right to security of the person, massively expanding the scope of judicial review, and, in the process, trivializing what it means for a right to be constitutionally protected.' jruttle@
Hans India
4 days ago
- Politics
- Hans India
Khalistan embassy in Canada: A brazen provocation that Ottawa still won't confront
New Delhi: Having failed to make any sort of impact in India, the pro-Khalistan elements have made Canada their playground for several years now. In fact, ties between India and Canada have turned sour and fragile owing to this issue. New Delhi has accused Canada of shielding Khalistan elements who are counterproductive to India's security interests. Now, to make matters worse, a so-called Embassy of the Republic of Khalistan has opened up in Surrey, British Columbia. This development is a further irritant in the already fragile ties between India and Canada. While under Justin Trudeau, ties had nosedived, a change of Prime Minister in Canada did re-ignite some hope for relations between the two countries. Under Mark Carney, relations seemed to be moving forward in the right direction. However, the pro-Khalistan elements wield too much influence, which makes it hard for any party in the country to ignore them. The so-called embassy is located at the Guru Nanak Sikh Gurdwara, once led by Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a designated terrorist in India. It was his murder that ignited diplomatic tensions. The opening of this embassy is not just worrisome, but is a brazen act by these elements who are part of terror organisations, narcotic cartels, and gangs. Canada has not yet reacted to this development. The Indian High Commission in Ottawa had issued a statement condemning the move. It said that this is a direct threat to India's sovereignty. The High Commission also called upon Canada to act against such elements. What is more ironic is that there is no word on this development from David Eby, the Premier of British Columbia. The embassy is said to have received funding of USD 150,000 from the state. British Columbia has an NDP government, a party that, until recently headed by Jagmeet Singh, who was an ally of Trudeau and a known Khalistan sympathiser. India has provided proof in the form of several dossiers about the activities of these elements. There is ample proof to suggest that those sitting in Canada are running the terror-gangster nexus that operates largely in India. However, Canada has refused to blink and, at one time, accused India of having a hand behind the killing of Nijjar. The question is why can't Canada act against these dangerous elements? For one, politicians in Canada have recognised these elements not as terrorists, but as legitimate political non-violent people. Signages seeking a Khalistan state and referendums by these persons are seen as a non-violent expression. The biggest reason for the stoic silence is vote bank politics. Canada's legal framework places a high value on freedom of expression that is protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is exactly what the Khalistani elements use to term themselves as legitimate activities. Canada has also, on several occasions, said that this is about freedom of speech and hence no action can be taken against them. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service had in 2024 said that non-violent advocacy for an independent state of Khalistan cannot be considered extremism. However, in 2024, the same agency had said that Khalistanis pose a threat. It went on to say that Khalistani extremists continue to use Canada as a base for promotion, fundraising, or planning of violence in India. This was a major shift in approach, but on the ground, nothing seems to have changed. As per the 2021 census, the population of Sikhs in Canada stood at 7.7 lakh. This is something that politicians cannot ignore, as these are sizeable vote banks and also have immense influence in the country. While a majority of this Sikh population does not subscribe to the Khalistan ideology, there are a few who think otherwise. Although smaller in number, Canadian politicians want to take no chances when it comes to elections. Can India and Canada remain quiet about this and let relations strain further? The answer is no. India and Canada will have to act upon these elements. Canada, in particular, has recognised the problem, but is yet to act on it. Indian officials will realise the gravity on when the Khalistan elements spill on the streets and hurt Canadian interests. It has been happening gradually, but the question is -- how long will Canada wait?
Vancouver Sun
6 days ago
- Politics
- Vancouver Sun
Court ruling declaring removal of bike lanes unconstitutional is 'ridiculous': Doug Ford
THORNHILL — Ontario Premier Doug Ford teed off Wednesday on a court decision declaring his law to remove three Toronto bike lanes unconstitutional, calling it the 'most ridiculous' ruling he has ever seen. Ford has already said his government plans to appeal, even as it works on a compromise with the city to both keep the bike lanes and add extra lanes for vehicle traffic. He said he has faith that the Court of Appeal will overturn the lower-court ruling, but in the event it does not, he did not rule out using the notwithstanding clause to save the law. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. 'Let's see what happens at the Court of Appeals, and then we'll go from there, but I have confidence in the courts,' Ford said at an unrelated transit announcement. Ontario Superior Court Justice Paul Schabas ruled the lane removals would put people at an 'increased risk of harm and death' and violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He noted that the government had received advice from experts, reports from Toronto officials and evidence from the city and elsewhere that removing bike lanes 'will not achieve the asserted goal' of the law, to reduce traffic. Ford made the removal of bike lanes on Bloor Street, Yonge Street and University Avenue a campaign issue during the snap election he called and won in February, and he says the judge's ruling tramples on people's democratic rights. 'This is the most ridiculous decision I've ever seen,' he said. 'I've never seen a decision like this, that a judge overrules the people of Ontario because of ideology — not because of law — ideology, but we knew when they picked this judge where it was going anyway, so it's not a big surprise.' It's not the first time Ford has called judges' integrity into question. In April he blasted judges he perceives as being soft on crime, and floated ideas such as electing judges and offering them payouts to retire early. Last year, Ford defended his government's appointments of two former staffers to a committee that helps select provincial judges, saying he wants 'like-minded people' in appointments, not Liberals or New Democrats. Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here .
Edmonton Journal
6 days ago
- Politics
- Edmonton Journal
Court ruling declaring removal of bike lanes unconstitutional is 'ridiculous': Doug Ford
THORNHILL — Ontario Premier Doug Ford teed off Wednesday on a court decision declaring his law to remove three Toronto bike lanes unconstitutional, calling it the 'most ridiculous' ruling he has ever seen. Article content Ford has already said his government plans to appeal, even as it works on a compromise with the city to both keep the bike lanes and add extra lanes for vehicle traffic. Article content Article content He said he has faith that the Court of Appeal will overturn the lower-court ruling, but in the event it does not, he did not rule out using the notwithstanding clause to save the law. Article content Article content 'Let's see what happens at the Court of Appeals, and then we'll go from there, but I have confidence in the courts,' Ford said at an unrelated transit announcement. Article content Ontario Superior Court Justice Paul Schabas ruled the lane removals would put people at an 'increased risk of harm and death' and violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Article content He noted that the government had received advice from experts, reports from Toronto officials and evidence from the city and elsewhere that removing bike lanes 'will not achieve the asserted goal' of the law, to reduce traffic. Article content Ford made the removal of bike lanes on Bloor Street, Yonge Street and University Avenue a campaign issue during the snap election he called and won in February, and he says the judge's ruling tramples on people's democratic rights. Article content Article content 'This is the most ridiculous decision I've ever seen,' he said. Article content Article content 'I've never seen a decision like this, that a judge overrules the people of Ontario because of ideology — not because of law — ideology, but we knew when they picked this judge where it was going anyway, so it's not a big surprise.' Article content It's not the first time Ford has called judges' integrity into question. In April he blasted judges he perceives as being soft on crime, and floated ideas such as electing judges and offering them payouts to retire early. Article content Last year, Ford defended his government's appointments of two former staffers to a committee that helps select provincial judges, saying he wants 'like-minded people' in appointments, not Liberals or New Democrats. Article content
