Environmental litigation often brings in the popular imagination a battle between some big polluting corporations and marginalised people abandoned by the state (the movie Erin Brockovich comes to mind). Those cases do exist, but the majority of environmental law is operationalized by government agencies balancing competing interests, usually economic development with environmental protection. This often results in a compromise: allowing a polluting activity, but with some mitigation measure to limit the environmental effects. But what happens when the two competing interests in front of the executive are environmental protection? This is what the Environmental Review Tribunal of Ontario (ERT) had to deal with in the case Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County v Director, Ministry of the Environment, ultimately largely upheld by the Court of Appeal. This case presents the interesting issue of balancing the need for renewable energy and the impacts such a project can have on the environment, such as the endangered Blanding’s turtle.
J’ai l’impression que la grève étudiante de 2012 qui a évoluée en mouvement populaire généralisé ne s’est terminée qu’hier. Cette impression me vient peut-être du fait qu’aucune solution permanente n’a été mise de l’avant pour régler les problèmes sous-tendant cette crise. Bien que la grève étudiante présentement en cours n’a pas la même envergure que celle de 2012, elle représente en partie le malaise de la société face aux compressions budgétaires de l’État au nom de l’austérité et du sacro-saint déficit zéro. Les étudiants en grève ne le sont pas parce que le gouvernement à décider d’augmenter les frais de scolarité ou de couper dans le programme de prêts et bourses, mais bien pour protester les politiques néo-libérales du gouvernement Couillard. Cette grève est aussi accompagnée de manifestations populaires et syndicales sur divers sujets reliés au mécontentement de la population face aux politiques gouvernementales telles que les coupes dans les programmes sociaux et le projet d’oléoduc d’Énergie Est.
This winter the Supreme Court (SCC) handed down a decision in the Carter case on the constitutionality of prohibiting assisted dying. This judgement is part of a series first started in PHS Community Services Society (safe drug injection sites) and continued in Bedford (sex work) on the expansion of the right to life, liberty and security of the person. When the Court of Appeal handed its decision upholding the assisted dying ban, I commented on this blog on how, even if the plaintiffs won at the Supreme Court (which they did, unsurprisingly for people who follow constitutional law and/or the issue), the result would be limited to being permitted to exercise a right instead of truly recognizing the equality of the group claiming this right. This post is in part of follow up on my initial thoughts and represents some of my reflections on the advancement of the right to life, liberty and security (section 7 of the Charter), and the fall of the right to equality/non-discrimination (section 15 of the Charter).
It’s been quite some time since I wrote something for this blog. While I started writing again, especially since there’s been some evolution on topics I previously covered, I thought I should write at least a short paragraph on why I was absent. Well this paragraph became its own thing and the result is this post on mental health.
To say the least, the past year has been … rocky. I will not list the things that happened in my life because it is mostly unnecessary and also concern other people than me in some instances. Suffice it to say that I had just recovered from a burn out, I was overwhelmed by unexpected work, and a succession of hardship fell upon a person very close to me. I think anyone in the same situation would cut the “less important” things like blogging and other hobbies as time becomes more precious, especially since I did not want to recreate the circumstances that lead to my burn out. Beside this, my circumstances lead to several reflections on mental health which I have decided to share here.
Sometime I am very proud of being Canadian, especially when we claim the moral high ground while blatantly disregarding basic international law norms. Do as I say, not as I do. For those who didn’t catch the sarcasm, this post does not talk about nationalistic pride. Instead it will explore briefly a major failure of our refugee and immigration system. This failure, I fear, is far from being the only one; it just so happens that we were made aware of it unlike most removed refugee claimants’ cases. The case I am referring to is the one of Adel Benhmuda and his family. Originally from Libya, he claimed refugee status in Canada in 2000, an application that was rejected by the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) in 2003. The government began removal procedure in 2008. Adel applied for a Pre-removal risk assessment, a procedure supposed to ensure that the removee will not be at risk of torture, cruel or unusual treatment, or death. The application was dismissed by an immigration officer and he was removed to Libya where he was detained upon arrival. He was subsequently tortured. He managed to smuggle his family out and claimed refugee status in Malta. Status was granted and Adel is now trying to come back to Canada.
L’actualité juridique québécoise m’offre gracieusement la chance d’écrire un billet en français. Bien que j’aurais aimé écrire quelque chose de positif, les récentes bourdes du gouvernement provincial et fédéral me poussent vers la critique (et la déception). Ces bourdes sont évidemment la charte des « valeurs » du Québec et la nomination du juge Nadon à la Cour suprême. Bien que ces deux évènements ne soient pas liés, ils ont en commun une forme d’amateurisme gouvernemental et une absence de réflexion poussée. J’aborde chaque bévue séparément.