Latest news with #SupremeCourtofBritishColumbia
National Post
24-04-2025
- Politics
- National Post
Andrew Irvine: We're taking UBC to court over DEI and other political activity
The petition I and others filed earlier this month asking the Supreme Court of British Columbia to require administrators representing the University of British Columbia to stop engaging in political activity has begun to generate discussion. Article content Article content According to a press release from the BC Civil Liberties Association, the lawsuit 'is a perverse interpretation of the prohibition of political activity under the University Act.' The authors go on to assert wrongly that we are using our submission as part of a 'hidden agenda' in an attempt to 'override' rights of Indigenous self-governance. Article content According to a press release issued by the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, our case in favour of academic freedom represents 'outdated and regressive views' and that 'There is no academic value in debating the validity of First Nations' basic human rights.' Article content Article content These organizations misunderstand our position. We take no position on land acknowledgements, other than that they are political in nature. Our case in no way attempts to override or diminish Indigenous rights. Article content It is also worth emphasizing that we in no way attempt to diminish Indigenous presence on either of UBC's two campuses and that nothing in our petition is intended to prevent UBC from continuing to engage with local First Nations, from continuing to promote awareness of Indigenous history, or from negotiating agreements about land or financial management with First Nations. Article content Instead, the case focuses on a single, separate issue: the extent to which a public, taxpayer-funded university whose statutory goal is the advancement of knowledge may also engage in overtly political activity. The issue is fundamental, since Section 66 of the B.C. University Act states that 'A university must be non-sectarian and non-political in principle.' Article content Our case is not politically partisan. It is not intended to support one side of any political or religious debate. Instead, we are simply asking for judicial confirmation that a clear line needs to be drawn between a university's administrative and governance activities on the one hand and its academic activities on the other. Article content Article content We are asking the court to remind the university that administrators have no mandate to take political positions on behalf of the university. They have no mandate to try to influence the academic work of professors, instructors, lecturers, scholars, researchers, artists, performers, librarians, archivists, curators or students as they engage in research, scholarship, teaching and learning about political and religious issues. Simply put, this is a case about academic freedom. Article content A plain-face reading of Section 66 tells us that universities are not permitted to introduce religious or political tests for the admission of students or the hiring of professors. It tells us that universities are not permitted to introduce religious or political criteria for the evaluation of academic work done by students, faculty and other members of the academic community. It tells us that the use of an administrative land acknowledgement to begin a university examination is no more appropriate than the use of a university-encouraged public prayer.
CBC
06-03-2025
- Health
- CBC
Survivors of abuse at Indian hospitals eligible for up to $200K in proposed settlement
WARNING: This story contains distressing details. Ottawa has reached a proposed settlement agreement with Indigenous survivors of the segregated health facilities known as Indian hospitals, to provide individual compensation ranging from $10,000 to $200,000. Indian hospitals were substandard facilities operated by the federal government starting in the 1930s to separate Indigenous people from the rest of the Canadian population to stop the spread of tuberculosis. Tens of thousands of First Nations, Inuit and Métis patients, including children, were admitted to the overcrowded, poorly staffed and unsanitary institutions. Survivors allege they faced physical and sexual abuse from hospital staff, along with forcible confinement to beds without a medical reason. Some say they were also the subject of medical experiments. The deal announced Thursday aims to resolve a $1.1-billion class-action lawsuit on behalf of former patients from the decades-long segregated health-care system rife with widespread mistreatment and abuse by providing an uncapped amount of compensation. The agreement covers 33 federally run Indian hospitals that operated from January 1936 until December 1981, excluding sanatoriums. 5 years of negotiations Under the proposal, individual compensation for survivors would vary depending on the level of verbal, physical and/or sexual abuse suffered. Some of the allegations from patients include: being beaten with rods and sticks, isolated in hospital rooms for prolonged periods of time, deprived of food and water and even forced to eat their own vomit. Compensation for immediate family members would also be made available. A foundation would be created to administer an additional $150-million healing fund for survivors to access money for the revitalization of their Indigenous languages, education and wellness. The foundation would also manage a separate $235.5-million research and commemoration fund to preserve the history of the institutions and to help local burial sites associated with them. WATCH | An in-depth look into Indian hospital abuse allegations: Lawsuit: Canadian government was negligent in 'Indian hospitals' 7 years ago Duration 2:16 The agreement comes after five years of negotiations between the federal government and lawyers for the lawsuit, Ann Cecile Hardy v. Attorney General of Canada, which was filed in 2018 and certified in 2020. An agreement-in-principle was reached in December 2024. The deal also covers three similar proposed class actions that were filed afterwards and dealt with collectively under Hardy, including: Deborah Azak and Wayne Louie (Supreme Court of British Columbia), Jean John Baptiste Pambrun (Court of King's Bench Saskatchewan) and Blanche Bull (Court of King's Bench Alberta). In addition to compensation, survivors could collectively access $150 million from Indigenous Services Canada for mental health and legal support through the claims process. The money would also cover the administrative cost of the settlement agreement by independent third parties. The Federal Court will decide whether to approve the proposed settlement agreement during hearings scheduled for June 10 and 11. Survivors are encouraged to provide feedback in advance.
