Latest news with #CharterofRights
Montreal Gazette
2 days ago
- Politics
- Montreal Gazette
Libman: On death, taxes and the future of minority rights in Quebec
Benjamin Franklin famously wrote: 'In this world nothing can be certain, except death and taxes.' Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, however, comes pretty close. It is the ironclad constitutional protection of minority-language education rights in this country. It has consistently been interpreted by Quebec courts to uphold the right of the English-speaking minority to control and manage its school system. And it's exempt from the application of the notwithstanding clause. After the Coalition Avenir Québec government adopted Bill 40 in 2020, abolishing and replacing school boards with service centres under greater government control, the province's English boards challenged the law as unconstitutional. In 2023 Quebec Superior Court Judge Sylvain Lussier agreed, ruling in no uncertain terms that much of Bill 40 infringes on the English-speaking community's constitutional rights to govern and control its educational institutions. The CAQ government, however, appealed the judgment. In April of this year, Quebec Court of Appeal judges Robert Mainville, Christine Baudouin and Judith Harvie handed down their ruling. They also concluded that parts of Bill 40 infringe on the section of the Charter of Rights that guarantees minority-language education rights and couldn't be demonstrably justified as a reasonable limit on charter rights in a free and democratic society. Another slam dunk for minority education rights. Yet this week, the Legault government went ahead anyways to request leave to appeal this judgment by Quebec's highest court to the Supreme Court of Canada. The irony here shouldn't be lost: Quebec's nationalist government is asking Canada's highest court to overturn rulings from the two Quebec courts. I have little doubt Quebec's lawyers have advised the government they cannot possibly win this case at the Supreme Court. This appeal seems purely political. No one would expect the CAQ to dare show any surrender in assailing minority language rights at the risk of giving a drumstick to their more nationalist rivals, the separatist Parti Québécois. The Supreme Court should refuse to hear the appeal considering how categorically the two Quebec courts unanimously ruled in what seems an open-and-shut case. For several reasons, the ideal scenario would be for the Supreme Court to say the Quebec courts composed of Lussier, Mainville, Baudouin and Harvie have already made an irreproachable decision. Case closed. This, in fact, could even benefit the CAQ (which they might be secretly hoping for) because if the Supreme Court does take the case and inevitably invalidates sections of the law sometime next year, around Quebec election time, it would help provide ripe fodder for the PQ to condemn Canada for 'again' crushing Quebec's aspirations and ignoring its 'distinctiveness' — while conveniently glossing over the fact that Quebec francophone judges had also unanimously struck it down. But watch out for another concern. Within days of the appeal court's ruling, coincidentally or not, Quebec Justice Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette announced his intention to launch negotiations with Ottawa about amending the Constitution so that Quebec judges are chosen from among members of the Quebec Bar, recommended by the Quebec government. Currently, superior and appeal court judges are appointed by the federal government. Judges in this country act as a check and balance for government legislation, if challenged. They are impartial arbiters, interpreting the charters of rights to balance individual or minority rights against political objectives. In Quebec, where an important linguistic minority relies on constitutional protections, the courts are their only redress at times, often against the backdrop of a highly charged language environment. We need only look across the border at the U.S. to see what can happen when the court system becomes politicized. If certain Quebec governments started to exert influence on the courts by appointing judges known for favouring collective rights over individual rights, or harbouring secessionist sympathies, for example, the last vestiges of protection for minority communities, including the certainty of Section 23, could vanish.
Epoch Times
07-05-2025
- Health
- Epoch Times
Supreme Court Denies Appeal of Ontario Doctor Who Questioned COVID Lockdowns
Canada's top court has denied an Ontario doctor who was critical of pandemic lockdowns the chance to appeal three directives mandating cautions be placed on her public file by the province's medical regulatory college. The Supreme Court of Canada has with costs Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill's application to appeal the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision that upheld orders for public 'cautions' against her issued by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO). Gill sought to before the Supreme Court that the standard of review should be correctness rather than reasonableness in cases where courts review administrative decisions related to the Charter of Rights. The court did not explain its reasons for dismissing the Brampton, Ont., doctor's appeal. The Divisional Court, whose The caution orders were initiated by the college after two August 2020 social media posts by Gill that were critical of the lockdown orders in Ontario. The first post on the platform, now known as X, read: 'There is absolutely no medical or scientific reason for this prolonged, harmful and illogical lockdown.' The second said, 'If you have not yet figured out that we don't need a vaccine, you are not paying attention.' Related Stories 4/10/2024 3/21/2024 Gill, who became well known during the COVID-19 pandemic for her online challenges to the government's public health restrictions, said she was following her conscience with her social media posts. 'It is shocking to me that I would be publicly censured by the CPSO's committee for speaking the truth and upholding the Hippocratic Oath, and even more shocking that the Courts in Canada would simply defer to the CPSO's committee which had itself deferred to the government,' she said in a May 1 . 'The truth is not blasphemy simply because it contradicts the government.' She also took to in response to the Supreme Court ruling, describing the past five years as an 'unjust journey.' Gill's lawyer Lisa Bildy said the orders issued by the college infringe on her client's Charter rights, adding that the decisions of regulatory bodies like the CPSO 'should be held to a stricter standard.' 'Dr. Gill turned to the Supreme Court in the hope that it would engage in its historical role as guardian of the constitution, but unfortunately it declined to do so in this case,' Bildy said. 'The speech of professionals will continue to be chilled over fears of discipline or censure by their regulators, which is not in the public interest.' The CPSO did not respond to requests for comment on the court's decision. In a Social Media Views Gill, an expert in pediatrics, allergy, and clinical immunology, gained a substantial audience on social media during the pandemic, where she voiced her views and apprehensions about the government's response, including the potential negative impacts of lockdowns and other mandates. She became the subject of seven public complaints lodged with the CPSO, because of her online remarks and was also the subject of a separate inquiry conducted by the college's registrar as a result. Each case was reviewed in February 2021 by the CPSO committee known as the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC). While the committee dismissed five of the complaints, it issued orders for three separate cautions to be placed on her public file. In its The college also disciplinary proceedings against Gill in October 2023. to avoid the blemishes on her public file cost Gill her life savings and she faced an additional $300,000 in court costs for trying to have the caution orders overturned. She was given 'mere weeks' to pay, Gill said in a March 2024 X post. A was set up at the time to help Gill raise the necessary funds but she had achieved just 50 percent of her target with only four days remaining before the court costs came due. X, which is owned by Elon Musk, its plan to help Gill pay her legal bills after seeing her posts asking for the public's help. 'When Elon Musk learned earlier this week about her crowdfunding campaign to pay the judgment, he pledged to help,' X said in its post. 'X will now fund the rest of Dr. Gill's campaign so that she can pay her $300,000 judgment and her legal bills.' Gill expressed her appreciation in a , noting that X had contacted her directly to verify the commitment. Bildy, who works with Libertas Law, said her client had been unfairly labelled as an 'anti-vaxxer' because of her comments, which she said was demonstrably untrue. 'She has always been a proponent of routine childhood vaccines in her clinical practice,' a 2024 press release from the law firm said, adding that 'she also supports Covid vaccines for high-risk individuals with informed consent.' The firm noted that Gill's online commentary came at a time when there was no COVID-19 vaccine authorized anywhere in the world. 'The comment was in relation to a press conference that day by Dr. Theresa Tam in which she stated that, despite the anticipated authorization of a vaccine, possibly by that year's end, it would not be a silver bullet and lockdowns and restrictions could persist for at least another two or three years,' said the release. The CPSO that the evidence indicated lockdowns in China and South Korea were having an effect and accused Gill of failing to maintain the 'standard of practice' for her profession.
Winnipeg Free Press
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
Rhetoric and outdated policy won't solve crime issue
Opinion The movie Don't Look Up was a troubling satire on what happens when people don't listen to experts. In that film, climate-science deniers avoided the evidence of researchers and it ended in the destruction of the world. Bypassing scientific evidence has gained traction among politicians south of the border. With elbows up, I thought we were immune here — until I heard the campaign promises around crime. Crime is an easy target among politicians. No one wants to be a victim of crime. And as someone who has studied crime and advocated for crime policy for over 30 years, I've seen politicians prey on the topic of crime to scare people into voting for them. For the party that recently lost a significant lead in this year's federal election, it has meant taking a targeted aim at crime. Spencer Colby / The Canadian Press When politicians talk tough about fighting crime, they're depending on emotion, not evidence, for votes. Generally, the three main parties don't differ very much on their approach to crime. All want an increase in penalties, more accountability, and to protect the vulnerable. But the recent rhetoric by Pierre Poilievre has ramped up the discussion in a way that is twisting the reality of crime, to his supposed benefit. His extra-tough-on-crime stance, a familiar topic for Conservatives, is painting a skewed picture of crime. And just as it did with former prime minister Stephen Harper, it avoids expert knowledge, even for the most basic of criminal justice statistics. Poilievre is campaigning on the fact that crime has increased over the time the Liberals were in office. Some crimes have increased, but not the ones he's talking about. He is talking about multiple murderers, crime while on bail, unsafe streets, and oddly, victims not having access to the Charter of Rights. As an expert on crime, my bipartisan head is spinning. Could there be any more context missing? Crime peaked in the mid-'90s, under the reign of the 1984-1993 Conservatives. At the tail end of that Conservative era, crime declined consistently between 1993 and 2005, when the Liberals were in office. The decline continued between 2006 and 2015, when Stephen Harper was prime minister. Then, the Conservatives adopted a tough on crime stance, which many say was not necessary as crime was already on the decline. Since the recent Liberal decade that Poilievre constantly reminds us of, crime has had an odd pattern, somewhat related to COVID, which had a significant impact on crime globally. There are slight increases in violent crime, a decrease in some property crime, a decrease in highway traffic act violations, but an increase in administrative and other offences. Violent crime increased by two per cent, but it is 24 per cent lower than it was 15 years ago. In fact, homicide rates declined in 2023, with only 778 cases across Canada, 104 fewer than the previous year, and there has been a 14 per cent decrease in homicides, not the 112 per cent increase that Poilievre references. Generally, property crime is more impactful on the lives of people than violent crime, but politicians conveniently dismiss the idea that wages and good jobs can decrease property crime. Poilievre is correct in saying fraud and extortion have increased. It has and it requires intervention. Also increasing have been online crimes and intimate partner violence, topics that few parties want to discuss because all stripes of government have failed to adequately address these complex issues. Policy briefs and calls to declare IPV a national epidemic have not been addressed by Poilievre as an MP. Nor has another complex crime that has increased by 72 per cent — hate crimes. These statistics should be our starting point for any policy discussions about crime. What to do. The Conservative platform that getting extra-tough on crime, reinstating consecutive sentences for multiple murderers, modifying the Charter, and adopting a three-strikes-and-you're-out policy is an outdated set of policy reforms that will not meaningfully address the crimes that Canadians face. During Elections Get campaign news, insight, analysis and commentary delivered to your inbox during Canada's 2025 election. Messing around with the Charter is especially concerning. Three-strikes-and-you're-out is a discredited crime policy that was popular in the 1990s and has been largely condemned by criminal justice scholars and practitioners. Not only do these polices not work to decrease crime, research has shown they increase homicide rates and create grossly disproportionate sentences. These are not solutions to protect people and create a safer sociey. These have been denigrated by those in the U.S., both in Texas and California, who implemented these polices and repealed them because they have failed. Not only do these suggested policies run counter to all the evidence of criminal justice research, they represent a waste of taxpayer dollars. This is something we can't afford to waste in these trying economic times. It's simply fiscally irresponsible. Evidence on how to reduce crime exists. We know how to prevent and decrease crime. But that knowledge doesn't make for a good soundbite. It doesn't instill fear in people who will then vote for a party who uses crime as a rhetorical strategy. As one character in Don't Look Up said, 'the truth is way more depressing.' Dr. Kelly Gorkoff is associate professor and department chair of Criminal Justice at the University of Winnipeg.
